U.S. Dept of Justice, David C. Farmer, Trustee vs. Bobby N. Harmon

NEW DISCOVERY (12-22-09): More evidence of bias and undisclosed conflicts of interest of Judge Eden Elizabeth Hifo (fka Bambi Weil) with Gov. John Waihee, Judge William S. Richardson, Judge Colleen Hirai, Judge Kevin Chang, Judge David Ezra, etc:

NEW DISCOVERIES (05-12-09): More factual evidence of undisclosed conflicts of interest between Judge Kevin S. Chang, Judge David A. Ezra and other parties in this case:

Former labor attorney and state Supreme Court Justice Edward Nakamura, widely regarded as a man of integrity unafraid to criticize abuses of power, died early yesterday at Queen's Hospital after undergoing open heart surgery.

Nakamura, 74, had suffered a heart attack Saturday, said his wife, Martha Nakamura.

Even after retirement in 1989 after nearly 10 years as an associate justice, Nakamura remained an influential figure. He played a key behind-the-scenes role in the crafting of the Aug. 9 "Broken Trust" opinion piece in the Star-Bulletin that spurred Gov. Ben Cayetano to order an investigation of the $10 billion Bishop Estate, one of the nation's largest charitable trusts.

"It was only after three meetings with Ed over pancakes at the Like Like Drive Inn that I started to see 'the whole picture,'" said University of Hawaii law Professor Randall Roth, one of the five authors of the essay. "Without his guidance, the project might never have gotten off the ground."

Nakamura provided insight into how things worked. "It was an insider's look at the Democratic power structure," Roth said. "He was fed up with the way things have evolved. He felt some people in recent years betrayed what the ideals of the Democratic revolution (of the 1950s) were all about. They were watching out for themselves rather than the ideals of their predecessors."

Roth added: "In his quiet but firm way, Ed always followed his conscience, even when that was certain to displease powerful people."

In 1993, Nakamura opposed then-Gov. John Waihee's nomination of attorney Sharon Himeno to the state Supreme Court, which drew fire because of her political connections and because her law firm represented her father, developer Stanley Himeno, in a questionable business deal involving the state pension fund.

Nakamura advised attorneys who publicly opposed Himeno's nomination, which was rejected by the Senate.

That same year, Nakamura testified in the Senate's special investigation into the management of the state pension fund. He said that during his tenure as a fund trustee, a golf course deal was pushed by the then-chairman of the Employees' Retirement System, Gordon Uyeda, that would have provided a financial windfall for Uyeda's friend, developer Rodney Inaba.

When the pension board voted to purchase the Wood Ranch Golf Club in Simi Valley, Calif., Nakamura resigned in protest.

But the $31 million deal quickly unraveled with Waihee apparently playing a role in getting trustees to abandon the project.

Nakamura was born in Honolulu on Oct. 9, 1922, the son of immigrant laborers. A self-described liberal, he was one of the many Japanese-American veterans of World War II who went to college on the GI bill and joined the Democratic Party, helping it transform Hawaii into a society that offered more educational and employment opportunities for non-Caucasians.

Although he considered himself simply a "foot soldier" in the campaigns of John Burns, who would eventually become governor, many considered Nakamura to be a key architect of the Democratic revolution.

After graduating from the University of Chicago law school in 1951, in the same class with U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, Nakamura joined Bouslog & Symonds, then the only labor law firm in Hawaii at a time when lawyers were fearful of representing workers. It was when McCarthyism fanned congressional investigations into organized labor in search of "subversive activities."

Martha Nakamura remembers that when her husband, who also served as a University of Hawaii regent, was asked to describe himself, "He always said he was a labor lawyer for 28 years. He always said that first."

Attorney Jared Jossem, former state Republican Party chairman who was Nakamura's legal adversary in about 50 cases, said: "He was a model attorney who represented his clients effectively and brilliantly.

"In developing proposals to legally change labor-management relations, he quietly worked the political side to get his clients' and his vision into legislation. He combined intellectual power with inordinate political skills."

When Nakamura joined the high court, there were fears that he would be one-sided since he was a labor attorney with no prior experience on the bench. But that did not happen.

"As a justice, he adopted a more centrist view balancing the specific interests of unions and employers," Jossem said.

One of the high court's key decisions authored by Nakamura declared that an employer's written handbooks and policies can be considered binding contracts under certain circumstances. That protects workers not covered by collective-bargaining agreements or employment contracts.

Retired state appellate Judge Walter Heen, another co-author of the "Broken Trust" opinion piece, said: "Justice Nakamura will stand out in the history of Hawaii as one of its finest legal minds and one who possessed the highest concern for principle. His opinions reflect both those characteristics."

Retired Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice William Richardson, who served with Nakamura, all of the current justices, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, who served with Nakamura in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, Gov. Ben Cayetano and attorney James King, Nakamura's former law partner, all praised Nakamura for his honesty, integrity and wisdom.

Scores of legal professionals as old as the 69-year-old Heen and as young as 33-year-old state Rep. Scott Saiki (D, Moiliili) claim Nakamura as their mentor.

"I think he had so much integrity and wisdom, and he led by example," said Saiki.

Nakamura's nephew, attorney James Kawashima, 31, added: "He was very principled and always ethical. Sometimes that's rare in people and lawyers both."...

CV05-00030 - U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the U.S. Trustee, David C. Farmer, Trustee vs. Bobby N. Harmon-Exhibit: "Ex-trustee Peters sues trust's former counsel" & Witnesses: Henry Peters, Nathan Aipa, etc.

"Barack H. Obama" <info@barackobama.com>, "Eric Holder" <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "David Farmer" <farmerd001@hawaii.rr.com>, "Steven Guttman" <sguttman@kdubm.com>, "Carol K. Muranaka" <ustp.region15@usdoj.gov>, "David A. Ezra" <theresa_lam@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Judith Neustadter" <Judy@tiki.net>, "Kevin S.C. Chang" <shari_afuso@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Barry M. Kurren" <tammy_kimura@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Securities & Exchange Commission Enforcement Division" <enforcement@sec.gov>, "U.S. Treasury Dept. Office of Inspector General" <hotline@oig.treas.gov>, "Office of Inspector General US Dept of Justice" <oig.hotline@usdoj.gov>, "Executive Office for U.S. Trustees" <ustrustee.program@usdoj.gov>, "Robert Faris" <hib@hib.uscourts.gov>, "Anthony Romero" <Executive_director@aclu.org>, "ACLU of Kentucky" <info@aclu-ky.org>, "Electronic Freedom Foundation" <information@eff.org>, "Public Citizen" <publiccitizen@mail.democracyinaction.org>, "Thomas Fitton" <info@judicialwatch.org>, "SEC Office of The Inspector General" <oig@sec.gov>

"ACLU Hawaii" <office@acluhawaii.org>, "All Representatives" <reps@Capitol.hawaii.gov>, "All Senators" <sens@Capitol.hawaii.gov>, "Andrew Walden" <hfpeditor@email.com>, "Aon Insurance Managers" <mike_coulter@agl.aon.com>, "Arthur Rath" <imua@spamarrest.com>, "Benjamin Kudo" <bkudo@imanakakudo.com>, "Bradley Tamm" <btamm@hawaii.rr.com>, "Carl Morton" <ethics@hawaiiethics.org>, "Charles Goodwin" <HONOLULU@FBI.GOV>, "Charles Hurd" <mcp@mediatehawaii.org>, "David Shapiro" <volcanicash@gmail.com>, "Dee Jay Mailer" <ksinfo@ksbe.edu>, "Dorothy Sellers" <hawaiiag@hawaii.gov>, "Executive Office for U.S. Trustees" <ustrustee.program@usdoj.gov>, "Hugh Jones" <hugh.r.jones@hawaii.gov>, "Insurance Division Fraud Branch" <insfraud@dcca.hawaii.gov>, "J C Shannon" <Hapa1234@aol.com>, "James B Nicholson" <jamesbnicholson@aol.com>, "James B. Farris" <Farrisj@adr.org>, "James Cribley" <jcribley@caselombardi.com>, "James Wriston" <jwriston@awlaw.com>, "Jeffrey Watanabe" <jwatanabe@wik.com>, "Jim Dooley" <jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com>, "Jo Ann Uchida" <rico@dcca.hawaii.gov>, "Joe Moore" <news@khon2.com>, "John D. Finnegan" <info@chubb.com>, "John Goemans" <wip@kamuela.com>, "Judge Lloyd King" <hib@hib.uscourts.gov>, "Judith Neustadter" <Judy@tiki.net>, "Judson Witham" <jurisnot2@yahoo.com>, "Ken Conklin" <ken_conklin@yahoo.com>, "Kenneth Hipp" <khipp@marrhipp.com>, "Lawrence Reifurth" <dcca@dcca.hawaii.gov>, "Linda Lingle" <governor.lingle@hawaii.gov>, "Lyn Flanigan Anzai" <lflanigan@hsba.org>, "Margery Bronster" <info@bchlaw.net>, "Marsh Affinity Group" <prosecure@marshpm.com>, "Michael N. Tanoue" <mtanoue@paclawgroup.com>, "Michelle Tucker" <michelle@sterlingandtucker.com>, "Nathan Aipa" <nathan@pitluck.com>, "Office of Inspector General Civil Rights Complaints" <inspector.general@usdoj.gov>, "Office of the U.S. Trustee District of Hawaii" <ustp.region15@usdoj.goV>, "Paul Alston" <palston@ahfi.com>, "Randall Roth" <rroth@hawaii.edu>, "Rick Daysog" <rdaysog@honoluluadvertiser.com>, "Robert Bruce Graham" <bgraham@awlaw.com>, "Robin Campaniano" <aigh001@aighawaii.com>, "Samuel P. King" <leslie_sai@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Susan Tius" <STius@rmhawaii.com>, "William K Slate" <Websitemail@adr.org>, "Jim Terrack" <tnthawaii@aol.com>, "Don Michak" <dmichak@journalinquirer.com>, "Rocco Sansone" <rocco.c.sansone@marsh.com>, "Ted Pettit" <tpettit@caselombardi.com>, "Mark Burch" <burch@hawaii.edu>, "Laura Thielen" <dlnr@hawaii.gov>, "Vaughn & Lynda Robinson" <ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com>, "Rebecca Christie" <rchristie4@bloomberg.net>, "Catbird" <the-catbird@hotmail.com>, "James Duca" <jduca@kdubm.com>, "Ian Lind" <diary@ilind.net>, "Roy F. Hughes" <hthughes@hawaii.rr.com>, "Malia Zimmerman" <Malia@hawaiireporter.com>, "Elisa Yadao" <Ka_Hana@notes.k12.hi.us>, "Jack Cashill" <JCashill@aol.com>, "Marshall Chriswell" <mc@whistleblowers.org>, "Tom Flocco" <tom2@tomflocco.com>, "Eric Shine" <civilrights911@socal.rr.com>, "Laser Haas" <laserhaas@msn.com>, "Lucy Komisar" <lkomisar@msn.com>, "Democrats.com" <activist@democrats.com>, "Debra Sweet" <debrasweet@worldcantwait.org>, "Jane Kirtley" <kirt001@umn.edu>, "V K Durham" <vkdtdht@pionet.net>, "John Jubinsky" <Jube@tghawaii.com>, "Yamil Berard" <yberard@star-telegram.com>, "Ian McDonald" <ian.mcdonald@wsj.com>, "Michael Moore" <bailout@michaelmoore.com>

Former Bishop Estate trustee Henry Peters has filed a lawsuit against former Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate general counsel Nathan Aipa, charging that Aipa violated attorney-client confidentiality.

The lawsuit was filed yesterday in state Circuit Court by attorney Eric Seitz on behalf of Peters. It named Aipa as a defendant, but did not include KSBE, now known as Kamehameha Schools.

Peters is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages. Aipa could not be reached for comment.

Peters was a trustee of the Bishop Estate from 1984 until he resigned in December 1999 amidst allegations that he and the other trustees mismanaged the billion-dollar trust and abused their power. Aipa served as chief counsel of KSBE from 1985 to 2001 and is now in private practice.

In the lawsuit, Peters said he met regularly with Aipa and provided information to the counsel pertaining to Peters' role as a trustee. Peters "reasonably expected and relied upon the confidentiality of his communications with Aipa," the lawsuit stated.

But Peters' lawsuit said that beginning in 1998, Aipa "repeatedly" disclosed the confidential information to "various parties and entities." Aipa also repeated confidential information at grand jury proceedings, the lawsuit said.

Peters said Aipa did not seek or receive any waiver of the attorney-client privilege.

As a result of Aipa's actions, the suit said, Peters suffered "severe and continuing damage" to his reputation and a loss of income.

Due to the new discovery of material facts in this case, I am adding the subject Exhibit which provides evidence of breach of confidentiality and attorney-client priviledge in this case as well as in the Peters vs. Aipa case described in this news article. The financial, professional, political and personal relationships between these two individuals (as shown in their witness descriptions), also provides factual evidence of undisclosed conflicts of interest among various entities involved in this lawsuit, including many, if not all, of the judges involved.

In spite of all this factual evidence, however, I am again asking that we attempt to reach a global settlement of this matter through confidential negotiation or mediation rather than continuing these costly and seemingly-endless court proceedings.

If you still are NOT willing to attempt to negotiate or mediate a settlement, then I ask that you do your required review this new Exhibit and advise me if you find it contains any so-called "protected subject matter", and whether or not you intend to OBJECT to my filing a Motion to reopen this case.

Mr. Farmer, I respectfully request your immediate reply. If I do not receive a response from you or your insurance carrier within 15 days, I will assume that you have found no "protected subject matter" in these updated pages, and that you will NOT file any objections to my Motion.

Judson ON THE RECORD - VERY IMPORTANT!! New Member, Sheldon, is Pres. of YAL @ Idaho State, seeking Utah YAL...& member Judson Witham has filed the Utah lawsuit against Obama!

To: ronpaul-16-announce@meetup.com, "Vaughn & Lynda Robison" <ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com>

Cc: sam@audiocanyon.com, letters@news-jrnl.com, stewwebb@sierranv.net, stich@unfriendlyskies.com, bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com, blumberg@cyberport.net, Specialops@huffingtonpost.com, hwburgess@hawaii.rr.com, Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com, info@votevets.org, Hapa1234@aol.com, "MadMax@RoadWarriorRadio.com, Curt Crosby" <curtcrosby@gmail.com>, richardhayesphillips@yahoo.com, johnstadtmiller@hotmail.com, jack@cybrquest.com, stangfeedback@gmail.com, wmreditor@waynemadsenreport.com, jamesedwards@thepoliticalcesspool.org

BYU LAW LIBRARY after sending and receiving FAXES for me for YEARS, suspended my use of the FAX services et al AS Channel 5 Salt Lake called them asking about me ?? YUP BYU retaliated because ?????

My position is to UPHOLD the LAW to see to it that QUALIFIED CITIZENS are our representatives and IF NOT, well, you do the math. My filing speaks for itself.

§4. Citizenship. That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

This section was supplemented by the Act of July 2, 1932, 47 Stat 571, amended by the Act of July 1, 1940, 54 Stat 707, providing that for purposes of Act of Sept. 22, 1922, 46 Stat 1511, women born in Hawaii prior to June 14, 1900 deemed U.S. citizens at birth. But Act of Sept. 22, 1922 was repealed by Act of Oct. 14, 1940, 54 Stat 1137, which in turn was repealed by Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat 166 (McCarran-Walter Act), and the present provisions are contained in 8 U.S.C.A. 1435(a).

Under Art. 17, §1, of the Const. of 1894 (adapted from the 14th Am. of the U.S. Const.) all persons born or naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands and subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Hawaii were citizens thereof. Between 1842 and 1892, 731 Chinese and three Japanese were naturalized in Hawaii; since 1892, none. Birth certificates by the Territory of Hawaii are not controlling, and persons applying for admission to the United States with such certificates may be detained by immigration officers for the purpose of determining citizenship, 35 Ops. 69. The secretary of Hawaii may issue to persons born in Hawaii certificates of Hawaiian birth, which are prima facie evidence: HRS §§338-41 to 44, see also former law: L. 1905, c. 64; am. L. 1907, c. 79; rep. L. 1909, c. 15; R.L. 1915, p. 1487; R.L. 1925, c. 21; R.L. 1935, c. 247. A person born in the Kingdom of Hawaii of British parents domiciled there was held to be a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii although he was registered at birth at the British consulate and had never renounced allegiance to the British crown nor sworn allegiance to the Hawaiian government: 11 H. 166. On citizenship of persons born in the United States of alien parents, see 169 U.S. 649. Mere residence in foreign state after majority does not expatriate, 31 F.2d 738. But son of naturalized Hawaiian citizen became expatriated through residence in foreign country of birth. 89 F.2d 489, cert. den. 301 U.S. 682, reh'g den. 301 U.S. 713. Naturalization as Hawaiian citizen did not occur under Const. of 1894 by issuance of certificate of Minister of Interior where allegiance to native land not renounced and court order not obtained. 117 F.2d 588, reh'g den. 120 F.2d 760, aff'd by divided court, 315 U.S. 783.

Chinese who were Hawaiian citizens on Aug. 12, 1898, by either birth or naturalization, whether under the monarchy or the republic, became American citizens under this §: 23 Ops. 509; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 118; and their wives and children were thereafter entitled to enter the Territory; 23 Ops. 345; and such a citizen could take oath that he was such, and obtain an American register for a vessel which had a Hawaiian register on that date and was then owned and continued to be owned by a Hawaiian citizen until purchased by such Chinese; 23 Ops. 352. Son of Chinese, naturalized Hawaiian citizen, born in China in 1894 and remaining there through minority, did not become citizen and not entitled to enter U.S. 69 F.2d 681. Chinese held for deportation may set up American citizenship in habeas corpus or deportation proceedings, but the burden is on them to prove such citizenship: 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 6; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 44; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 104; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 113; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 234; 270 Fed. 57.

Habeas corpus lies to protect immigrant's right to have question of citizenship determined; 160 Fed. 842, affirming 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 168. See also §§100 and 101, and notes thereto; also note to Joint Resolution of Annexation, RLH 1955, page 13.

Woman of Chinese ancestry, born in Hawaii in 1894 but married to Chinese alien in 1910, could not be naturalized under the Acts cited in first paragraph of this note as they stood prior to 1940 amendment, because of her nonresidence on July 2, 1932, 88 F.2d 88.

For decisions generally on immigration and citizens see notes to §§100 and 101, and note to RLH 1955, §57-43; also, presumptions: arising from findings of Board of inquiry or certificate of identity, 29 F.2d 500; 30 F.2d 516; 49 F.2d 19 and 24; may be rebutted, 30 F.2d 65; lack of, prima facie supports right to deport, 36 F.2d 563; fraud must be alleged in complaint, 63 F.2d 375 and 377. Delay for depositions may be a matter of right, 33 F.2d 236. Proof of Chinese descent shifts burden of proof: 104 F.2d 21, 111 F.2d 707. Finding of citizenship on previous entry not binding: 124 F.2d 21; but see 188 F.2d 975.

Under the treaty with Spain and Acts of Congress, a Puerto Rican, residing in Puerto Rico on April 11, 1899, and a year thereafter, who did not declare his decision to preserve his allegiance to Spain, did not lose his political status by removing to Hawaii in 1901, but became a citizen of the United States under a subsequent Act of Congress and hence entitled to vote in Hawaii: 24 H. 21.

Although §8(a)(1) of the Act of March 24, 1934, c 84, 48 Stat 456, 462, provides that Filipinos shall be placed on the quota basis as aliens, it is specifically made inapplicable to Hawaii and immigration is determined by the Interior Dept. on basis of industrial needs.

Filipino national in Hawaii became alien by proclamation of Philippine Independence, 183 F.2d 795.

Subject: [ronpaul-16] VERY IMPORTANT!! New Member, Sheldon, is Pres. of YAL @ Idaho State, seeking Utah YAL...& member Judson Witham has filed the Utah lawsuit against Obama!!

1. Sheldon Kreger is Pres. of the Idaho State Univ. Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). He says Univ of Utah/BYU have not got a YAL organized and wants to help Utah get them started and coordinate between Utah and Idaho YAL groups. Dave used to be President of the Univ of Utah Students for Ron Paul, and organized a rally downtown for all of us on Oct. 13, 2007 (still on our calendar of past events). And David Garber & Ken were with the BYU Students for Ron Paul. We passed these names on to Sheldon. Click on his name and send him an email if you have any new details to add for helping him contact people interested in organizing YAL groups in Utah.

2. Judson Witham -- over 30 lawsuits against Obama nationwide regarding his lack of citizenship to be running for President -- the Internet listed that Utah had a lawsuit, also, and after more digging, we found that the person filing the lawsuit against Obama in Utah was our very own member Jud Witham!! How COOL is that!!!! Jud, do you need any help and/or support on this lawsuit? Thank YOU for taking a stand against those attempting to steal the US Constitution!!

(Anybody who wants to help Jud with this lawsuit, feel free to contact him. Likewise, anybody who is able to help Mike Ridgeway finish paying off his lawyer for a very successful lawsuit against the Utah GOP leaders who did their malicious scam on him---the judge declared Mike innocent last July---please feel free to contact him, also ---- Ron Paul has asked all of us to clean house with the local party first, and Mike, et.al, has been doing that for 10 years on their own--we encourage all meetup members to join with Mike Ridgeway and the others who are ashamed and disgusted at the party's corruptness in our state that must be replaced with "good, honest, and wise" leaders before we can ever get liberty-minded candidates with integrity elected here in Utah!)

HAVING UTAH INCLUDED IN THE OBAMA LAWSUITS AGAINST HIS FRAUDULENT CLAIM OF BEING A LEGAL CITIZEN IS AWESOME!!

Watch reports on this from Devvy Kidd at WND (World Net Daily). She's contacted the FBI to do a check on campaign funds fraud by Obama, she's talking and reporting about all 30 lawsuits (which include 2 more at the US Supreme Court level by a Democrat named Berg and another lawsuit by the presidential candidate Alan Keyes!!--the rest all seem to be lawsuits that are against their state's Secretary of State, demanding answers for Obama's proof of citizenship), and she's contacting the Electoral College about not voting until this is settled.

Allegedly, the Hawaii governor swore under oath 2 months ago that Hawaii does NOT have any birth certificate, and that the governor has allegedly sworn under oath that Obama was born in Kenya. This is a direct attack on the US Constitution, nothing to do with race.

It is to take down the last of the US Constitution, which is to take down the Electoral College (having the US public manipulated into demanding the "people's vote" is more important than the Electoral College vote, and to throw away the US Constitution or have it "re-written"---not realizing the "people's vote" is a rigged election), and to also take down the "natural born citizen" requirement.

Obama has hired THREE LAW FIRMS, not 3 lawyers, but 3 law firms, to handle this first lawsuit by Leo-Somebody at the US Supreme Court. There's been monkey-business with clerks stalling all of the 30 lawsuits, with the excuse that it was "not filed correctly." Leo's lawsuit was stalled by the clerk having an anthrax search on the papers/envelope he'd had filed with them.

They're stalling big time. Stalling until after the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote. Stalling until after he gets into office on January 20th.

And mainstream media had a complete blackout on this story until today (Friday, 12-5-08) when the Chicago Tribune ran the story, with the L.A. times picking up on it, and now many major papers nationwide, including "Drudge" on the Internet, are finally running this story (that started last June or before). But none of the Salt Lake papers are running any of it yet. Why is that, when we're a "red state" and allegedly all voted for McCain?

The question has already been posed as to what to do if Obama is declared unable to take the presidential office because "the US Constitution doesn't tell us what to do." Well, yes it did. It said a "natural born citizen." When you break a rule, you go back to the beginning. You don't use the broken rule as an excuse to change the rules.

Yeah, that probably means another election. We say have lawsuits filed against McCain, again (they got dismissed earlier), to undo Congress' "resolution" that stated that his illegal immigrant status was ok with them, and then have all the rest of the candidates put back on the ballot who got left off even though they were only suspending their campaign, including Ron Paul.

Don't know if that means Pelosi would be the temporary prez after January 20 until a new election is handled or not. Don't know what options are out there that are legal for this. But the "Establishment" having 2 illegals running for president at all, is beyond a reasonable doubt that this was an "accident."

--This message was sent by Vaughn & Lynda Robison (ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com) from Utah Campaign for Liberty.

NEW DISCOVERY (11-24-08): New Exhibit: “EQ 2048 - Deposition of Lokelani Lindsey taken on November 4 & 9, 1999". This document provides clear evidence that J. Douglas Ing had multiple conflicts-of-interest in this case and, since he was not a named Defendant in my RICO lawsuit against the former Trustees, he was not a legitimate signatory to the Settlement Agreement: Furthermore, since the Settlement Agreement was NOT SIGNED by any of the five Trustees actually named as Defendants, the Settlement Agreement was not legal or valid. (See Exhibit A)

The May 7, 1999 order regarding orders to show cause requires the former trustees immediately to resign offices and directorships in the trust’s subsidiary and affiliated organizations... P&C Insurance Company, Inc., is a captive insurance company, the sole stock holder which is Pauahi Holdings Inc.

The Attorney General respectfully invites the court’s attention to the annual report publicly filed on March 28, 2000 by P&C (Ex. 1). The annual report lists Henry H. Peters as a director. The Attorney General is unable to determine whether the listing is incorrect; or whether Peters remains a director in violation of court order. The Attorney General’s several inquiries of the trust concerning this matter remain unanswered despite the passage of three months (Ex. 2).

1. I am a deputy attorney general, and I am familiar with the case records and files in Hawaii First Circuit Court Equity No. 2048 going back to approximately August 1997.

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and am competent to testify to them.

3. Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the annual report of P&C Insurance Company for the year ending Dec. 31, 1999, filed in late March 2000.

4, Exhibit 2 is a true and correct letter of my February 15, 2000 letter to counsel for the trust asking for verification that Henry Peters had resigned from P&C and the effective date of the resignation. I have never received a response to that letter.

Finally, we also requested some time ago copies of Henry Peters’ letters of resignation from directorships and ex officio positions, and specifically from P&C Insurance Company. Although the resignation letters of the other trustees were filed with the Court, Peters’ were not.

NEW DISCOVERY (08-04-08): UNDISCLOSED CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST BETWEEN JUDGE KEVIN CHANG; JUDGE COLLEEN HIRAI; THE FORMER BISHOP ESTATE TRUSTEES (DEFENDANTS IN HARMON’S RICO LAWSUIT); THE COURT-APPOINTED MEDIATORS IN EQUITY 2048 (DAVID FAIRBANKS AND JAMES DUFFY); FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; XL INSURANCE COMPANY; ATTORNEY GENERAL EARL ANZAI; DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HUGH JONES, STEVEN GUTTMAN, AND OTHERS:

The terms: Dickie Wong's attorney says the agreement resolves pending action against the ex-trustees

The significance: A settlement of the suit would avoid a costly trial scheduled next month

The attorney general`s office has agreed to settle its multimillion dollar lawsuit against the five former trustees of the Kamehameha Schools, according to a lawyer for former trustee Richard "Dickie" Wong.

Another person familiar with the settlement talks said, however, that while there is an agreement in principle it may be some time before it is completed.

In a sworn affidavit filed in the Hawaii Supreme Court yesterday, Wong's lawyer Eric Seitz said he has been informed that the attorney general`s office reached a "global settlement" on Aug. 4 with ex-board members Wong, Henry Peters, Gerard Jervis, Oswald Stender and Lokelani Lindsey that resolves the pending probate, tax and civil litigation against the former trustees.

The plan, which requires approval from the state Probate Court, represents a major milestone in the three-year controversy that has dogged the $6 billion charitable trust. If approved, the deal would avert a costly, one-year trial that is scheduled to begin Sept. 18. Details of the proposed deal remain under seal but Seitz, who represents Wong in the criminal actions brought by the state, said some of the attorney general`s civil claims against the former trustees will be covered by the estate`s $25 million insurance policy with Federal Insurance Co.

It is not clear whether the former trustees will be personally liable for any of the surcharges sought by the attorney general`s office. Seitz added that the insurance company will not cover the outstanding legal bills for the criminal proceedings against his client and Peters, who were indicted by an Oahu grand jury on theft charges. The criminal theft charges have been overturned by Circuit Judge Michael Town, but the state is appealing those decisions. Seitz, who is owed about $20,000 in legal fees for his work in Wong's criminal case, criticized the proposed settlement, saying it uses the insurance company's resources to pay for the civil cases at the expense of the criminal cases involving former trustees Wong and Peters. Until now, the insurance policy had been covering Wong's and Peters' criminal defense costs.

"It's not only unfair but it's an outrage, because it takes away ... the criminal protection that he's entitled to," Seitz said.

Seitz' affidavit was in response to a request by the attorney general's office for records relating to Federal Insurance's payments for Wong's legal costs, a subject of the state's surcharge suit. Seitz argued that state attorneys shouldn't be entitled to the insurance records since they have settled the surcharge suit.

Deputy Attorney General Hugh Jones had no comment on Seitz' affidavit, saying the mediation process is subject to a confidentiality order. Glenn Sato, a lawyer representing Wong in the Probate Court proceedings, also declined comment on Seitz' filing, citing the court's confidentiality order.

An attorney for Stender also had no response, while lawyers for Peters and Jervis could not be reached.

Michael Green, Lindsey's lawyer, took issue with Seitz' affidavit, calling it irresponsible given the sensitivity of the settlement talks.

"The discussions at this point are fragile at best," Green said. "For any lawyer, including Mr. Seitz, to say this case is settled is irresponsible."

A spokesman for the estate said there is no settlement at this time. He declined further comment.

In its lawsuit, the state is seeking multimillion dollar surcharges against the former trustees for allegedly taking excessive compensation, mismanaging the trust's educational programs and incurring more than $200 million in investment losses.

The former trustees have denied wrongdoing, saying the trust is well-run and financially stable.

According to Seitz, the global settlement was reached by all of the parties, including Federal Insurance, during an Aug. 4 closed-door conference with Probate Judge Kevin Chang. Seitz said the plan was placed on the record, making it enforceable.

But others familiar with the talks said that while there may be tentative agreement, there are outstanding issues.

They noted that the attorney general's office and lawyers for the former trustees continue to hold discussions with the court-appointed mediators, David Fairbanks and James Duffy.

Minutes to the Aug. 4 meeting in Chang`s chambers are under a court-ordered seal.

The Board of Trustees of Kamehameha Schools has filed a Petition for Appointment of Successor Trustee, which starts the process of selecting a replacement for Trustee Robert Kihune, whose term expires in one year, on June 30, 2009. A hearing of the petition has been granted by the court for August 8, 2008.

As a Trustee, Admiral Kihune has consistently kept his focus on the mission of Kamehameha Schools, always holding Ke Ali'i Pauahi’s interests paramount, being adamant about educating Hawaiian children with need. From the day he stepped forward as an Interim Trustee until today, he has stood for effective governance, inspired leadership and a bias for action to move Kamehameha Schools’ mission forward. He has consistently supported programs to expand the educational reach of Kamehameha Schools and has taken the kuleana of land stewardship very seriously. His contributions have been enormous. As he embarks on his final year as Trustee, he does so with our deepest gratitude.

Under the Will of Ke Ali`i Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the Trustees were to be selected by a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of Hawai'i. However, in 1997 three of the five current Supreme Court Justices – Chief Justice Ronald Moon and Associate Justices Paula Nakayama and Steven Levinson – gave notice that they would not be exercising the power to appoint Trustees as granted by Pauahi’s Will.

The Justices maintained that position in 2006, when a replacement was selected for then-Trustee Constance Lau. If the Justices maintain this position in 2009, the upcoming vacancy cannot be filled as Pauahi intended. In that case, the Petition for Appointment of a Successor Trustee suggests that the court follow the selection procedure established in 1999 for the selection of the current Board of Trustees.

1. The Probate Court appoints a Screening Committee of seven persons who are knowledgeable about Kamehameha Schools and Pauahi’s legacy and vision and experienced in the management and operation of a large institution, educational or otherwise.

2. The Screening Committee will accept applications and nominations, and may solicit applicants who have not applied.

4. The Screening Committee will select three finalists, whose names are published in the newspaper.

5. The Screening Committee will receive comment from the community, including the Trustees and the Attorney General, for 30 days, and submit a report detailing the input to the Court.

Our duty as Trustees in this matter is to file the Petition for Appointment of a Successor, and then continue to do our best to fulfill Pauahi’s vision and the mission of Kamehameha Schools while the selection process is underway.

A special court-appointed panel today nominated seven business and community leaders as finalists for the trusteeship of the Kamehameha Schools.

Kihune and Lau currently are serving as interim trustees of the $6 billion charitable trust.

The selection committee filed its list of finalists with the state Probate Court this morning. The court will name the five permanent trustees from the list but not before a 30-day period during which the public will have the opportunity to comment.

The selection process marks a milestone in the 116-year history of the Kamehameha Schools, whose most recent past has been wracked by controversy and dissension.

Previously, trustees were picked by the state Supreme Court as spelled out in the will of the estate's founder, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. But the turmoil prompted the high court to step away from the selection process in December 1997.

Critics have charged that politics tainted the Supreme Court's selection of previous trustees.

The screening committee said the nominees, who were picked from a field of more than 200 applicants, represent a deep sense of commitment and have the ability to ensure that Bishop's legacy continues.

The nominees -- screened for their business experience, community involvement and leadership experience -- represent a diverse cross-section of the local community. Ing is a Kamehameha Schools graduate who represented former trustee Oswald Stender in his successful suit to remove ex-board member Lokelani Lindsey. Thompson is well known as the navigator on the Hokulea voyages across the Pacific.

Plotts served as developer Christopher Hemmeter's top executive as he built several five-star hotels during the 1980s economic boom, while Kanazawa headed Amfac during the late 1990s as the company was phasing out its agricultural operations.

Under a court-revised plan, the annual pay for permanent trustees is capped at $97,000. The chairman will receive no more than $120,000 a year.

Screening committee members include Hawaiian educator Nona Beamer, business executive Kenneth Brown, attorney Melody MacKenzie, Kamehameha Schools alum Mike Rawlins, the estate's court-appointed master Colbert Matsumoto, Hawaii Community Foundation head Kelvin Taketa and Roy Benham, president of the Oahu region of the Kamehameha Alumni Association.

Campaign laws could have
been violated and it could
have lost its tax-exempt status

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.

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 members Richard "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 alleged campaign 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.

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.

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.

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:

... 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. Flanigan reported 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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 the Judicial Selection Commission during the Waihee years.

Verner Liipfert -- whose mainland offices lists former U.S Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, former Republican presidential candidate Robert 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 Liipfert and 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."

And the spending doesn't include legal bills wracked up by Bishop Estate's for-profit subsidiaries.

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.

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 state Department 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.

By Rick Daysog, Star-Bulletin

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:

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.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Hank, for that wonderful introduction. I probably should quit while I’m ahead. [LAUGHTER] And thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the warm welcome.

I admire Hank Paulson very much for many things. His interest in Asia and our long-term relationship with the Asian Pacific community and particularly his leadership of the Nature Conservancy, some of you may not be familiar with it, but it is the principal private organization facilitating the preservation of precious natural land in the United States, and increasingly, in other places on the globe. I don’t think I ever told Hank this. But when I was the Governor of Arkansas, we used the Nature Conservancy more than any other State in the country.

I also want thank the people at Goldman Sachs, many of whom have contributed to the work of my Foundation, and the work we do around the world to try to fight AIDS and extend economic opportunity, to promote education and citizen service and to try to bridge the racial and religious divides that still bedevil the world. And I want thank Goldman Sachs for hiring at least a dozen people, who worked in the White House and other places in the administration. I was worried about what all those young people were going to do when we left office. [LAUGHS] So I am deeply in your debt....

Gov. Lingle will pick the next chief justice unless
the people alter the Constitution

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.

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 chose Michael 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.

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.

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:

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:

Chairperson
Rosemary T. Fazio	Chairperson
Philip Hellreich	Vice-Chairperson
Shelton G.W. Jim On	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)

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."

NEW DISCOVERY (02-09-08): Kamehameha Schools made a “confidential” settlement agreement with the plaintiff in the John Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools case, which my former attorney, John Goemans, Esq., says, according to what he has learned from the IRS, violates the rules for a non-profit charitable trust:

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 receives tax-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.

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.

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."

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.

Yesterday's disclosure of the $7 million payment made by Kamehameha Schools to settle a civil rights lawsuit prompted questions and anger from individuals on both sides of the schools' controversial admissions policy that gives preference to students of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

"It does seem like a lot of money. It sure would be if it was in my pocket," said University of Hawai'i law school professor Jon Van Dyke, who served as a legal consultant to Kamehameha in the lawsuit.

Van Dyke said yesterday he wasn't part of the settlement discussions and still believes the payment led to the right outcome for the school.

The settlement was signed in May just before the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to announce whether it would hear an appeal of the case. Terms of the settlement had been kept confidential until this week. John Goemans, an attorney for the plaintiff in the case, revealed the $7 million figure to The Advertiser.

The settlement meant that an earlier 8-7 vote by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Kamehameha's admissions policy is still the prevailing law.

H. William Burgess, a local attorney who filed legal papers with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiff in the case, said yesterday, "Wow. The settlement was much larger than I thought."

Burgess said he still believes the case should have been heard by the Supreme Court so that legal questions surrounding the school's Hawaiians-first admissions policy were settled.

"I actually think the trustees of the Kamehameha Schools have a legal duty, when there's a legitimate legal question about what they're doing, to seek a resolution of the issue," Burgess said.

News of the $7 million payment provoked more than 500 online postings to The Advertiser that variously criticized school officials who approved the payment and the lawyers and the client who received the money.

Beatrice "Beadie" Dawson, a native Hawaiian attorney who is active in Kamehameha Schools affairs, said yesterday the settlement itself and now news of the $7 million amount "are like an open invitation for more lawsuits."

"I was very dismayed by news of the settlement last year and I was very surprised by the size of it today," Dawson said.

Hawai'i attorney David Rosen, who last year announced plans to file another legal challenge to the school's admission policy, confirmed this week that the lawsuit is taking shape but has not been filed.

He issued a news release yesterday reacting to the settlement amount that said, "The people of Hawai'i should be outraged that the trustees of Kamehameha Schools place a higher value on discriminating rather than educating."

Goemans, the lawyer who publicly revealed the $7 million figure, said he believes the settlement should be a matter of public record given Kamehameha Schools' status as a tax-exempt charitable institution.

Goemans helped bring the civil rights lawsuit against Kamehameha in 2003 on behalf of a non-Hawaiian student denied admission to the high school. The student and the student's mother, who live on the Big Island, have never been identified except as John Doe and Jane Doe.

Goemans also said the settlement is subject to review by the Internal Revenue Service and by the state attorney general's office, which oversees Kamehameha Schools' annual financial accountings filed with state Probate Court.

David Fairbanks, a Honolulu lawyer serving as the appointed "master" who must review Kamehameha's financial fillings for the Probate Court, did not respond to a telephone message for comment yesterday.

An attorney involved in a challenge to Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only policy reveals the amount of a settlement

Kamehameha Schools made the first move to settle a legal challenge to their admissions policy giving preference to native Hawaiians and later agreed to pay $7 million, a lawyer involved in the case said yesterday.

John Goemans, an attorney for an unnamed non-native Hawaiian student who filed a lawsuit contesting the policy, said the charitable trust offered for the first time to talk about an out-of-court settlement last May, just days before the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case.

Goemans, a former Big Island attorney recuperating in Florida from heart surgery, and Sacramento, Calif., lawyer Eric Grant, the lead attorney, represented the unnamed student and his mother.

"They (the schools) approached Eric and said we wanted to settle and we have to settle by Friday morning," when it was believed the high court was to make a decision about accepting the case, Goemans said.

He said it appeared the high court would accept their appeal of an 8-7 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the policy.

"They (the schools) were worried about losing in the Supreme Court," Goemans said.

Goemans said he did not know how Grant and the Kamehameha Schools arrived at the $7 million figure.

The hotly disputed federal civil rights lawsuit caused a firestorm of controversy among Kamehameha Schools supporters who believed the challenge struck at the more than century-old admissions policy and the heart of the charitable trust's mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry.

The confidential settlement was announced on May 14. Those connected with the case repeatedly refused to disclose the terms.

Goemans said he was disclosing the amount because he said he recently learned from Internal Revenue Service officials that Kamehameha Schools, a tax-exempt charitable trust, cannot keep the figure confidential.

"Because exempt organizations operate in the public good, you got to report all your expenses with particularity, and you cannot keep information relative to those expenses confidential," he said. "It's in the public interest to have full disclosure."

Ann Botticelli, Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman, said yesterday the settlement contained a confidentiality clause.

"We intend to honor the terms, and we will not be discussing the settlement or John Goemans' assertions," she said.

Kamehameha Schools, a multibillion-dollar charitable trust and the state's largest private landowner, was established under the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. It educates more than 6,700 students at its flagship campus at Kapalama Heights, two other campuses on Maui and the Big Island, and 31 preschools throughout the state.

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld the school's Hawaiians-first policy, but a panel of the appeals court in San Francisco ruled 2-1 that the practice violated federal civil rights laws. That decision triggered statewide protests and marches by school supporters.

It was an appeal by Grant of that 8-7 ruling that was on the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court when the settlement was announced.

At the time, school officials indicated that the settlement calling for the dismissal of the lawsuit leaves intact the appeals court's 8-7 decision upholding the admissions policy.

But the dismissal does not guarantee that another lawsuit might surface and make its way to the high court, although it would first have to go through the federal trial and appeals courts, where the 8-7 ruling would be considered to be binding on the issue. But even if those who file the new lawsuit lose on those two levels, they could still ask the high court to review the case.

Honolulu attorney David Rosen said he has plaintiffs for a lawsuit to challenge the admissions policy. He said the settlement does not affect his case. Rosen said he expects the suit will be filed this year.

Goemans said Grant received 40 percent, or $2.8 million of the $7 million. Goemans said he is preparing to file his own lawsuit seeking to recover a "reasonable percentage" of the $7 million for his work in the case.

Goemans said he found the unnamed student and arranged for Grant to be the attorney for the student and his mother.

"I put the whole thing together," Goemans said. "But for me there would not have been a $7 million payment."

The student never was admitted to Kamehameha Schools because his case was pending. He has since graduated from high school and had been attending college, Grant said last year.

Supporters and critics expressed surprise yesterday at the $7 million Kamehameha Schools paid a student to settle a lawsuit disputing its Hawaiians-first admission policy.

One Kamehameha Schools alumnus says disclosure of the settlement with the anonymous, non-Hawaiian student will prompt questions among Hawaiians.

"I'm not happy with $7 million," said Kamehameha Schools alumnus Jan E. Hanohano Dill. "Unfortunately, that's a lot of money, and it's going to create a lot of questions in the Hawaiian community whether it was right or wrong and to continue."

Dill, also a board member of Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi, a nonprofit group whose members include students, parents, and alumni of Kamehameha Schools, said he continues to support the school's decision.

"I don't know the details, and I think that's something that has to be cleared," he said. "You settle because you want to avoid costs that would be incurred as you go forward."

He added, "I have to believe that they understood that this was something good for the Hawaiian people. ... It will be clear as things unfold whether that was true."

Dill, who is also president of the nonprofit Partners in Development Foundation, said the admissions policy must eventually be addressed and that the settlement avoids this case but does not stop other cases.

Marion Joy, former vice president of Na Pua, called the settlement a "misuse of trust funds."

"The trust is continually going to be challenged," she said. "This is not going to be the last. ... As far as settling for the particular lawsuit, it's not in the best interests of the beneficiaries (of the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop)."

Honolulu attorney David Rosen, who has sought potential clients to sue Kamehameha over its admissions policy after the settlement, sent out a statement yesterday that said the $7 million settlement was used to "buy off this case."

He added that the trustees should open a campus on the Leeward Coast of Oahu and possibly Molokai where increased educational opportunities are needed.

H. William Burgess, a retired attorney and founder of Aloha for All, a group opposed to Hawaiian sovereignty, said the settlement raises questions about the proper use of the trust funds.

"Normally, trustees, if they're doubtful about doing something, they ask the court to give them instructions," he said. "Yet in this case, the biggest charitable trust, probably in the nation, instead of welcoming the opportunity to get the highest court in the land to settle it, they pay $7 million to leave it open. And it is very much open."

The Wise Old Owl asks: How much of the settlement amount came from Kamehameha’s insurance companies, and how much came from the trust funds? How much did Kamehameha Schools (and/or their insurance company) spend for defense costs in this case before they decided to settle? Who is their insurance company? Their insurance broker? Who actually signed the Settlement Agreement?

John Waihee, IV, OHA trustee and son of former Governor John Waihee, III, is arrested in May, 2007, for DUI, but the arrest is not reported for six months. If this arrest of one of my named witness had been reported in the news media at the time it happened, as is normally done, this NEW material evidence could have been submitted in my earlier Requests for Reconsideration of the Appointment of David C. Farmer as Successor Trustee in this case.

New Discovery (11-17-07): Re: EQUITY No. 2048 - EXHIBITS RE DEPOSITIONS OF MARION MAE LINDSEY:

These documents, consisting of hundreds of pages, provide clear and material evidence of the many financial, professional, and political relationships between David Farmer, Bruce Graham and the Ashford & Wriston law firm, with the former and interim Trustees of Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, Nathan Aipa, Governor John Waihee, and others. These Exhibits can be found on the internet at the Broken Trust Book website, under the heading, “Lindsey Deposition (3 volumes)”:

"I believe certain trustees received
kickbacks worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars."

The trustees deny the state's
allegations and blame the Cayetano
administration for exploiting
the controversy

Raising the possibility of criminal charges, Attorney General Margery Bronster says Bishop Estate trustees received kickbacks, participated in illegal political campaign contributions and mismanaged Kamehameha Schools.

Yesterday, Bronster filed a 58-page petition in probate court targeting the removal of the estate's majority trustees Henry Peters, Richard Wong and Lokelani Lindsey, saying the three trustees enriched themselves at the expense of the trust's beneficiaries.

Bronster alleged that trustees Peters and Wong received kickbacks from a Hawaii Kai land deal involving Wong's brother-in-law, Jeff Stone.

Lindsey, meanwhile, mismanaged Kamehameha Schools and used trust employees to run personal errands and help renovate her Hauula home, the attorney general alleged.

"I believe certain trustees received kickbacks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from relatives via elaborate real estate transactions," Bronster said in a letter to Gov. Ben Cayetano, who ordered the investigation more than a year ago.

"Trustees have hired friends, relatives and political allies who have given little or no service to the trust and trustees have also routinely made sweetheart deals with this same assortment of relatives, cronies and other hangers on."

Bishop Estate attorney William McCorriston denied that any breaches of trust have occurred, saying trustees and their individual attorneys look forward to answering the charges in a court of law.

"They are looking forward to having this resolved by judicial resolution in a court of law -- hopefully by a judge who won't be influenced by the electronic lynching by the media or be persuaded by anything except the evidence that will be presented," McCorriston said.

Yesterday's removal petitions also sought surcharges against Peters, Wong and Lindsey, saying the majority trustees offered jobs to friends and relatives. The jobs paid high salaries but offered little services to the estate.

Some of the hirings forced the estate to create unbudgeted positions to accommodate the new hires, the state said. They included:

> Local attorney and Peters' friend, Al Jeremiah Jr., was paid $35,000 to conduct menial and clerical labor in helping to inventory the Baker/Van Dyke collection of Hawaiiana, the state said.

> Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee and Peters' associate, Clayton Hee, was hired by the estate's Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center Inc. subsidiary as a cultural affairs researcher, according to the state.

> State Rep. Terrance Tom, a former colleague of Peters' in the Legislature, has been paid a monthly retainer of $4,000 for negligible legal services, the state said. Tom has denied wrongdoing in the past.

> A company headed by Big Island businessman Larry Mehau is being paid $40,000 a month to provide security services at Kamehameha School's main gate. Mehau is a friend of Wong and Lindsey.

> Peters' former employer, Dura Constructors Inc., received more than $2.7 million in nonbid construction work from the Bishop Estate starting in 1995. Dura renovated Peters' home in Maili.

Renee Yuen, attorney for Peters, denied any wrongdoing by her client, saying the Cayetano administration is exploiting the controversy to boost the governor's "sagging popularity" and deflect attention from the weak economy.

"In the future, this dismantling of the Bishop Estate will be seen as the ultimate robbery of the native people directed by non-Hawaiians," she said.

Bronster, meanwhile, denied that politics is playing a role in her investigation, saying the timing of yesterday's petition is due in large part to delays caused by trustees.

The removal requests come more than a year after the state launched its investigation into allegations of financial mismanagement, breaches of fiduciary duties and manipulations of the student admission process at the estate-run Kamehameha Schools.

66, of Wailuku is a Democrat, the current speaker of the state House. The owner of a real estate company, Souki this summer was questioned by the state attorney general over a Maui land deal involving Bishop Estate that earned him a $132,000 commission. Souki denied any wrongdoing and said it a was a private real estate transaction. He is up for re-election this year, and has reported a $110,000 campaign war chest.

67, is a Democratic state representative from Kau-Puna, Big Island. The hotel industry executive first ran for public office as a Republican, winning a Hawaii County Council seat in 1983. Four years later, then-Gov. John Waihee appointed him to a Senate seat. The attorney general names Herkes as one of the politicians benefiting from trustees' actions aimed at "preserving excessive compensation”. In this Legislature, he opposed legislation to cap trustees' pay.

45, is a trustee and former chairman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. A Hawaiian culture college instructor, Hee, of Molokai, entered the state House in 1983. He later became a state senator -- where he became good friends with then-Sen. Ben Cayetano -- and served as Senate Judiciary chairman until 1988, when he lost his re-election bid. The attorney general says Hee was among politicians benefiting from trustees' actions aimed at "preserving excessive compensation."

56, is a Democratic state representative from Wailuku. Along with Souki, Tanaka was subpoenaed by the attorney general as part of the inquiry into the Maui land deal involving Bishop Estate. Tanaka earned a $42,000 commission from developer Everett Dowling last year, but said his consulting work did not involve the estate. Instead, Tanaka said he introduced Dowling to Sports Shinko Inc., which originally owned the Maui property.

50, has been a state representative since 1982. He now is running for the state Senate seat for Kahuku-Kaneohe. Tom, who has been blind since birth, has come under fire as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for his stand on several issues, including same-sex marriage. As a lawyer who gets a retainer of $4,000 a month from Bishop Estate, he was criticized this past session for voting on legislation to cap trustees' pay. He voted against the caps.

59, is a former state budget director who resigned in late 1993 to become Bishop Estate's chief executive for budget and review. He made $163,010 in 1997. As state budget director under Gov. John Waihee, he came under scrutiny from a state Senate special investigative committee for his government purchase practices and investment decisions of the state pension fund.

44, is a state senator representing the Kaneohe-Enchanted Lake district. Ige, a former elementary school teacher, first ran for the state House in 1978 and served until 1994, when he narrowly lost a bid for the state Senate. He was elected to the Senate two years later. The Damien High School graduate received his education degree from the University of Hawaii. He currently serves as co-chairman of the Senate Government Operations and Housing Committee.

45, is a former state senator and current administrative officer for Bishop Estate. In a story earlier this year based on records the estate submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, Holt reported he entertained state legislators at the estate's expense at local restaurants and hostess bars, although several lawmakers denied the meetings took place. From 1992 to 1997, more than $23,000 was charged on the estate's credit cards from Las Vegas casinos and local hostess bars.

Here are some accusations lodged by the state attorney general's office against Bishop Estate trustees:

> Inflated prices (on apartments at 1015 Wilder Ave.) were paid to Peters and Wong as a quid pro quo for conferring financial benefits on Wong's brother-in-law Jeffrey Stone.

This investment was made without adequate due diligence and in disregard of an internal staff report. KDP-Tech was managed by principals with no proven business track records, was a highly speculative start up company, and the soft-porn nature of the investment was not suitable for a charitable educational trust.

Within a week of the trust's initial investment of $500,000, KDP-Tech began negotiating a consulting agreement with Wong's brother-in-law Randy Stone.

> KDP-Trust (KDP Ltd., a subsidiary of Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center) continued to advance trust money to KDP-Tech until its treasurer, Lindsey's acquaintance, was indicted for federal mail fraud and money laundering crimes (for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced).

> While a director of Mid Ocean, Peters received substantial director's fees and received options to acquire 6,000 shares of Mid Ocean stock.

> The Mid Ocean fees and stock options are assets that belong to the trust and not to Peters individually.

> Peters has enriched himself at the expense of the beneficiaries by retaining the fees and stock options for his personal benefit.

> Peters and Wong concealed from the other trustees Holt's personal charges on the trust credit card and rejected suggestions to confiscate the card.

> Peters was instrumental in the trust entering into a consulting services contract with (friend Al) Jeremiah Jr., initially at $5,000 per month and then at $7,000 per month, without regard to whether any work was performed, with an additional $125 for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per month.

> Peters was instrumental in the trust, by its subsidiary Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center (RHSC), hiring (friend) Clayton Hee as a cultural affairs researcher with negligible duties.

> Terrance Tom served with Peters in the Hawaii Legislature, and was hired by the trust at a monthly legal retainer of approximately $4,000 for providing negligible, if any, legal services to the trust.

> Peters directed RHSC to hire his cousin, Mona Ryan, as a property manager. Peters directed RHSC to hire a number of his other friends or relatives. "The trust created unbudgeted positions to accommodate these hirings."

In July 1996, the trustees hired the Hawaii Protective Association to provide additional security personnel at the Kamehameha Schools. There was no operational necessity to hire any outside security contractor.

It is more expensive for the trust to use HPA than to use Kamehameha Schools personnel to provide the same security services. It is more expensive for the trust to use HPA than other outside security services, because HPA charges above market rates.

The trustees did not solicit competitive bids for HPA's security services. There is no written contract with HPA.

> Peters is a former employee of Dura Constructors Inc. ("Dura"). Dura renovated Peters' Maile residence.

Beginning in 1995, the trust awarded construction contracts to Dura without competitive bidding and in amounts totaling more than $2.7 million.

Dura received $465,000 for work on the athletic locker room at the Kamehameha Schools. The work was so deficient that the building was unsafe for student use. The trust corrected Dura's work itself rather than pursue Dura for the deficiencies.

> Rhino Roofing also worked on Peters' Maili home renovation. Peters' nephew is the owner of Rhino Roofing.

Beginning in 1995, the trust awarded construction contracts under which Rhino Roofing received more than $1.3 million, customarily without competitive bidding or as the hand-picked roofing subcontractor.

> In 1993, the Lindseys obtained a permit from the Building Department of the City and County of Honolulu ("Building Department") to renovate the house on the property (53-823 Kamehameha Highway). The renovations uncovered structural damage that necessitated additional work beyond the scope of the existing building permit.

Lindsey went forward with the expanded renovation and was cited by the Building Department for violating the existing building permit.

Lindsey obtained a private proposal for $12,000 to obtain the necessary governmental approvals for the expanded renovation to proceed.

Rather than spend $12,000 of her own money, Lindsey used trust employees to obtain a shoreline certification from the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, and to obtain a zoning variance from the City and County of Honolulu.

The trustees have used trust employees, equipment, supplies and resources for their personal benefit. For example:

> Lindsey has used trust employees to run personal errands for herself and her family members and to install a computer in her Maui and Oahu residences;

> During his 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992 political campaigns while a trustee, Peters used trust employees to photograph him and his supporters for his campaign materials, in violation of trust restrictions on political activity by the trust and its employees.

A judge has delivered a possibly fatal blow to the trustees of the Bishop Estate in a historic decision that many believe will lead to the resolution of the two-year controversy surrounding the estate.

Probate Judge Kevin Chang yesterday ordered the immediate and interim removal of trustees Richard "Dickie" Wong, Henry Peters, Lokelani Lindsey and Gerard Jervis in a move that could lead to their permanent dismissal from their $1 million-a-year jobs.

Chang also accepted the voluntary resignation of trustee Oswald Stender and named a panel of five interim trustees to assume the duties of the ousted board members.

Chang's bombshell follows Circuit Judge Bambi Weil's ruling on Thursday permanently removing Lindsey from the multibillion-dollar trust's board after a four-month trial that ended in April. Trustees Stender and Jervis had sued for Lindsey's ouster, saying she breached her fiduciary duties, mismanaged the estate-run Kamehameha Schools and was unfit to serve.

Yesterday's decision, after a five-hour hearing, came after Chang ordered the trustees to demonstrate why they should not resign or be temporarily removed. The IRS, which has been conducting an audit of the estate since 1996, had threatened to revoke the charitable trust's tax-exempt status if the trustees were not removed.

Loss of the tax-exempt status could have cost the estate tens of millions of dollars a year and forced it to pay significant back taxes.

Chang said the trustees' refusal to step down "creates an immediate and substantial risk of significant harm to the trust estate" and "constitutes a breach of trust."

Under yesterday's order, Chang gave the attorney general's office, the estate's court-appointed master or the interim trustees 90 days to seek the permanent removal of the trustees. If no such suit is filed during the 90-day period, the former board members must ask the court to lift the temporary ban.

Chang also ordered the ousted trustees not to communicate with estate employees, attorneys and their agents and has ordered them off the boards of their various subsidiaries and affiliates.

In February, Chang forbade the trustees from negotiating with the IRS over issues raised by its audits. After reviewing some 2,500 pages of reports known as IRS Form 5701s, or notices of proposed adjustments, Chang found that the trustees had a conflict and prohibited them from handling audit issues.

Yesterday, Wong said he would appeal Chang's ruling because he believes his rights to due process were violated. Since Chang removed the trustees from discussing audit issues with the IRS, Wong said he has never been informed of any wrongdoing.

"I'm entitled to due process and I want to face my accusers and face the allegations. I want to know why I was removed," Wong said.

Fellow trustee Henry Peters has also hinted at an appeal and has raised the possibility of suing the IRS. Peters yesterday denied wrongdoing, saying the trust today is far more wealthy and liquid than it ever has been.

Peters pointed to this week's public offering of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which added about $600 million to the estate's coffers. After the estate's investing $500 million in the Wall Street investment banking firm, the value of its holdings in Goldman has risen to as much as $2 billion.

"I'm not here to win a popularity contest, I'm here to do my job as a trustee. I can tell you unequivocally that we've done a good job," Peters said.

"We are big, we are massive, we are wealthy. If you want to refer to that as too much power, than so be it. We are proud of our legacy. We've done a wonderful job here and we're not going to apologize for our success."

To be sure, Wong and Peters are significant players in the controversy surrounding the trust. Both are targets of removal proceedings initiated by former Attorney General Margery Bronster and both have been indicted by separate grand juries investigating an alleged kickback scheme involving Bishop Estate land.

Stender said Chang's decision paves the way for major reforms of the Bishop Estate's operation. Future trustees will be more accountable to the needs of the Kamehameha Schools and to the interests of students, he said.

"I'm very pleased with the court's ruling today because it creates a new era for Kamehameha Schools and a new era for the management of the trust," Stender said.

Randall Roth, University of Hawaii law professor and co-author of the "Broken Trust" essay that criticized trustees' management of the estate, said that once the interim trustees take office, they will be able to waive the attorney-client privilege which former board members used to shield themselves from the state's investigation and to delay justice.

The interim trustees, according to Roth, see the benefit of cooperating with the state and federal probes.

"As a practical matter, what Chang's decision means is that the old trustees will never again be at the helm of the Bishop Estate," Roth said.

Meanwhile, members of the Kamehameha Schools ohana embraced yesterday's ruling, calling it the beginning of a long-overdue healing process.

"We are pleased the judicial process has worked, but slowly," said a statement issued by Na Pua, an organization of 3,300 Kamehameha Schools alumni, faculty, parents and students.

"Today's court decision is a vindication of the Kamehameha ohana and particularly for the many individuals who placed themselves at risk by speaking out."

Yesterday's hearing, before a packed audience, was attended by more than two dozen lawyers, including Bronster, who received an ovation when she entered the courtroom.

Last week, the state Senate, by a 14-11 vote, rejected Bronster's bid for a second term as attorney general, in a vote many believed was engineered by estate trustees.

Bronster, who launched the state's investigation of the Bishop Estate that led to the indictments of Wong and Peters, praised Chang for his decision and also trustee Oswald Stender for voluntarily stepping down.

"I think the court's order was very well thought out and it is a very important step," Bronster said.

Attorneys for trustees Wong, Peters and Lindsey argued that their clients' rights to a fair trial were denied. Ron Malone, Wong's attorney, accused the special-purpose trustees of "caving in to the IRS," which he said wants board members out so it can negotiate a settlement in its favor.

Malone said he believed that Wong is the target of a "mob mentality" and urged Chang to order a full evidentiary hearing. The request was denied.

"What we heard today was 'Me, me, me, me. My job, my power, my authority, my rights, my compensation, my due process rights,' " Sellers said.

May 15, 1997: More than 500 Kamehameha Schools parents, students, alumni and supporters march on Bishop Estate headquarters to protest what they said was trustees' micromanagement of the Kapalama Heights campus.

Aug. 9, 1997: The "Broken Trust" article in the Star-Bulletin alleges mismanagement of Bishop Estate assets and conflicts of interests by trustees and criticizes selection of trustees by state Supreme Court justices.

Dec. 12, 1997: Fact-finder Patrick Yim alleges that trustee Lokelani Lindsey managed Kamehameha Schools by "intimidation."

Dec. 20, 1997: Supreme Court justices remove themselves from selecting Bishop Estate trustees.

Sept. 9, 1998: Attorney General Margery Bronster calls for temporary removal of four trustees, saying they jeopardized the tax-exempt status of the trust.

Sept. 10, 1998: Bronster calls for removal of trustees Richard Wong, Henry Peters and Lindsey, charging they took part in a pattern of self-dealing and mismanagement.

March 11, 1999: Trustee Gerard Jervis is rushed to a hospital after taking an overdose of sleeping pills a week after a trust employee died in an apparent suicide. The day before her death, Jervis and the female worker were caught in a compromising position in a men's restroom by security workers at a Waikiki hotel.

April 12, 1999: Bishop Estate Chairman Wong is indicted on charges of first-degree theft, perjury and conspiracy.

April 27, 1999: IRS files a report saying it may revoke the tax-exempt status of the estate if the five trustees don't step down.

May 7, 1999: Probate Court Judge Kevin Chang temporarily removes four trustees and accepts Stender's resignation on an interim basis.

A trustee screen committee of seven volunteers will present a list of three candidates to the Probate Court, which will then select a trustee to serve the remainder of Lau’s five-year term, through June 30, 2008, according to an announcement yesterday....

In February it was announced that Lau, who has served as a Kamehameha trustee since 1999, would take over as Hawaiian Electric’s chief executive, director and president as of May 2....

Judge Kevin Chang is expected to testify as to the reasons he did not recuse himself from this case due to material conflicts of interests, as Defendant has evidenced in Complaint Letters, his Motion for Recusal, and in his numerous Exhibits and witness descriptions.