Woo vs. Harmon - Witness Colleen Wong

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE

David C. Farmer, Successor Trustee
vs.
Bobby N. Harmon

(Formerly Mary Lou Woo vs. Harmon and James Nicholson vs. Harmon)

CV05-00030 DAE/KSC

United States District Court, District of Hawaii

Judges: David A. Ezra; Kevin S. Chang

~ ~ ~

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS

COLLEEN WONG

Kamehameha Schools
567 S. King St., Ste 310
Honolulu, HI 96813

Colleen Wong is a 1975 graduate of Kamehameha Schools, and is currently Vice President for Legal Services, Kamehameha Schools. She is a recipient of letters in Defendant’s alleged “letter-writing campaign” which is at issue in this case.

Colleen Wong was formerly with the Honolulu law firm of Kobayashi, Watanabe, Sugita & Kawashima. She joined Kamehameha Schools’ legal staff in 1986 as Associate Counsel. In 1991, she was named Division Senior Counsel at Kamehameha, specializing in real property, personnel and employment law, business planning, real estate and investment transactions. She was named the Estate’s first Chief Legal Officer in 2000, overseeing all legal affairs of the Estate.

Beginning in May 2003, Wong served as the Acting CEO of Kamehameha Schools for a period of 8 months. Wong has served as president of the Corporate Counsel Section, director of the Real Property and Financial Services Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association, Native Hawaiian Bar Association, Hawaii Women’s Legal Foundation, Junior League of Honolulu, and the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. She was also a member of the School Readiness Task Force, University of Hawaii College of Education Advisory Committee, Good Beginnings Alliance, Hawaii Business Roundtable, Hawaii Services Institute Agency, Historic Hawaii Foundation and Maui Economic Development Board.

* * * * *

THE CATBIRD’S NEST

HERE COME DA JUDGE!

TRACKING THE TRUSTEES!

* * * * *

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)

http://www.kycbs.net/Lindsey-docs-Vol-1-p1-4.pdf

http://www.kycbs.net/Lindsey-docs-Vol-1.pdf

~ ~ ~

NEW UPDATE (09-07-08):

EARL I. ANZAI
Attorney General of Hawaii

DOROTHY D. SELLERS
HUGH R. JONES
Deputy Attorneys General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Attorneys for the Beneficiaries

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

In the Matter of the Estate

BERNICE P. BISHOP,

Deceased.

EQUITY NO. 2048 KSCC

~ ~ ~

REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCERNING MAY 7, 1999 ORDER

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).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 5, 2000

Respectfully submitted,

<s> DOROTHY SELLERS
Deputy Attorney General

~ ~ ~

DECLARATION OF DOROTHY SELLERS

DOROTHY SELLERS hereby states:

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.

5. On March 13, 2000, deputy attorney general Hugh Jones wrote trustee Libkuman (with a copy to general counsel Colleen Wong) about a number of matters. The final two paragraphs of that letter are:

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.

Please respond to these requests before March 31, 2000. Thank you.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 5, 2000

www.kycbs.net/Doc-EQ2048-PC-Peters-5-5-0.pdf

www.kycbs.net/PC-Arms-Length-Guide-10-1-94.pdf

www.kycbs.net/Doc-EQ2048-Mediation-Order-3-9-0.pdf

www.kycbs.net/KSBE-INTERROGATORIES.htm

www.kycbs.net/RICO-In-Paradise.htm

~ ~ ~

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:

February 9, 2008

$7M

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

By Ken Kobayashi, Honolulu Star-Bulletin

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.

Grant said yesterday he had no comment.

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.

Later, a larger appeals court panel voted 8-7 to uphold the policy.

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.

http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/09/news/story02.html

~ ~ ~

February 9, 2008

Amount of settlement
raises critical concern

By Robert Shikina, rshikina@starbulletin.com

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)."

Kamehameha Schools declined comment.

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."

http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/09/news/story03.html

* * *

From The Catbird Seat website:

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?

http://www.kycbs.net/Bishop7.htm

~ ~ ~

August 15, 2007

Improving Judicial Accountability in
Hawaii's Highest Court

By Randall Roth, The Hawaii Reporter

This is a summary of Randy Roth’s Comments to AJS Committee on Judicial Independence and Accountability (March 13, 2007)

Something is wrong with the system of judicial accountability when serious questions can be raised about the conduct of a state’s entire Supreme Court without an official body either coming to the defense of those justices or taking steps to hold those justices accountable.

Given the seriousness and specificity of the allegations in the Broken Trust essay and book, one would expect some kind of response. Thus far, the silence has been deafening:

• Commission on Judicial Conduct

• Judicial Selection Commission

• The Judiciary—Rule 19 Judicial Evaluations

• Hawaii State Bar Association

• American Judicature Society—Hawaii Chapter

• AJS Committee on Judicial Independence and Accountability

Nearly 10 years have passed since publication of the Broken Trust essay. Why has none of these organizations done anything? Are they assuming that the allegations have no merit? Or, are they assuming the existence of meritorious explanations for what appears to be unethical behavior? Why assume anything?

Why has “everyone” stuck his, her, or its head in the sand over a matter of such monumental importance? Doesn’t the deafening silence and lack of action indicate to you that something is wrong with the system of judicial accountability in Hawaii?

My goal is not to see anyone embarrassed or treated unfairly. If too much time has passed for there to be individual accountability, so be it. That’s one question.

A completely separate question is the one that has me here today: Did the judicial accountability system work or not work properly in the days, months and years following the publication of the Broken Trust essay? What about over the past year in response to new revelations in the Broken Trust book?

If this body does not attempt to answer such questions, who will? As corny as it sounds: If not you, who? If not now, when?

My perception is that the system did not work. My further perception is that the individuals running the various organizations are in denial.

If this body were serious about its assigned task, step one would be to acknowledge that the judicial accountability system failed in this instance. Step two would be to acknowledge that it failed intentionally. The people and issues involved here are simply too important for the total absence of accountability to have been inadvertent.

How can this body expect to deal with its task responsibly—and credibly—if it does not first acknowledge such obvious facts?

I apologize if my words offend anyone. According to Kate, you invited me here today to tell you what I think you should do. So that’s what I’m doing.

I also have some specific suggestions, but I don’t want to waste your time—or mine— going over them if you are not ready to acknowledge that the system failed miserably in this instance, and that the failure was not inadvertent.

Here are some specific suggestions that I hope the committee will consider along with the suggestions of others:

Analyze what went wrong, and explain it to the public.

Abolish the Judicial Selection Commission.

Although originally touted as a way to de-politicize judicial selection, the JSC simply moved the politics to behind a closed door. Limiting the governor to names on a short list that the JSC develops in secret makes it difficult, if not impossible, to hold anyone accountable for a bad selection decision. Similarly, because judicial evaluations are not made public and the JSC makes all retention decisions in secret, it is virtually impossible to hold the JSC accountable for its retention decisions.

Hawaii should put the process of appointing and re-appointing judges back into the hands of the governor. If the governor wants to appoint a panel to produce a short list of candidates, that would be fine. Either way, the governor should be expected to explain publicly the reasons for each appointment and re-appointment decision. All such decisions should be subject to Senate confirmation.

If the Senate or the public perceives an appointment to be other than merit-based, the governor would not have the excuse of having been limited to someone else’s short list. These proposed changes would increase significantly the current low levels of transparency and accountability, and for that reason alone would tend to increase public confidence in the judiciary (i.e., even if the quality of the judiciary were to remain the same).

Abolish the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct is supposed to hold accountable the justices who select the members of the Commission, and the Commission operates totally in secret. These attributes do not instill confidence and trust in the judiciary. To the contrary, they promote distrust and cynicism. An independent party who operates more openly could better accomplish the Commission’s work. (See below)

Create an Office of the Inspector General.

This person would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. He or she would have investigatory but not enforcement powers, and would render written advisory decisions on matters of alleged or apparent improper behavior by judges. The governor would be expected to address the substance of any such decision when announcing a decision to re-appoint, or not to re-appoint, a judge whose behavior had been considered by the inspector general. In the event of serious misconduct, a judge could, and presumably would, be removed from office by majority vote of the Senate. In addition to taking over the work of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the inspector general could administer the judicial evaluation process. (See below)

Revise the Judicial Evaluation Program.

To increase the level of confidence and trust in the judiciary, a party other than the judiciary should administer the judicial evaluation program. The inspector general could oversee the program and share detailed results with a small committee of judges whose function would be to help individual judges use that feedback as a tool for improvement. Each year the inspector general would provide to the public a bottom-line evaluation of each judge (e.g., satisfactory or unsatisfactory). This bottom-line public evaluation would begin only after an appropriate grace period of at least several years to give a new judge an opportunity to grow into the job.

Of course good people are the most important ingredient in achieving judicial independence and accountability. They will generally find a way to make even a flawed system work reasonably well. Unfortunately, the converse is equally true: bad people will usually find a way to manipulate to some degree even the best of systems. That reality should be kept in mind.

What I have proposed would not be perfect. The important question is whether these changes would be a significant improvement over the current system. As I stated earlier, I believe the current system of judicial accountability is not working.

These proposals would increase significantly the current levels of transparency and accountability in the judiciary. Transparency and accountability are critically important in establishing and maintaining confidence and trust in the system of justice, in my opinion.

Thank you for this opportunity to share these thoughts with you.

Randall Roth is an attorney, professor at the University of Hawaii School of Law, and co-author of "Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement & Political Manipulation at America’s Largest Charitable Trust"

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/list.aspx?Now+in+Hawaii

~ ~ ~

From www.brokentrustbook.com:

Latest Developments as of June 6, 2007

Named "BOOK OF THE YEAR" by Hawaii Book Publishers Association... see details here and here

This Week's Quote*:

"Broken Trust was by far the most popular text in my class. Students loved it!"
-Professor William Edmond Sharp, Jr., Hawaii Pacific University

Last Week's Quote*:

"I just finished reading 'Broken Trust' and it is brilliant! I could not put it down. For every question I had, there was an answer in the book. It is clear, concise, historic, and hugely entertaining. This should be required reading for everyone, especially students.

“I am also dismayed and discouraged that, in so many ways, nothing changed. Maybe I am naive, but it makes me angry that the still sitting judiciary is responsible not only for the debacle, but the perpetuation of the same skewed selection process. They have no shame, no remorse, no ethical or moral sense to make a change that is so obvious, only justification of their own behavior. That the 'interim trustees' , despite the IRS mandates, public outcry, legal cases, etc, kept the BE staff attorneys on the payroll completely boggles my mind. Thank you for having the courage and the sheer grit to write this book. Without this record, I have no doubt the players would continue minimizing the truth and erasing history to excuse actions that are truly inexcusable."

-Kathi Thomason, Accountant

~ ~ ~

Latest Developments as of February 19, 2007

This Week's Quote:

"I loved this book! Not only is the story amazing, and well-researched, but it is so well told. It was like reading a thriller; I could not wait to find out what would happen next. Who would have thought that a book about a charitable trust could be so exciting? Some of the characters are truly unforgettable. I guess truth really is stranger than fiction. I am still shaking my head at the fiduciary breaches and the conflicts of interest."

-Professor Mary LaFrance, University of Nevada School of Law~ ~ ~

July 5, 2006

'Broken Trust' Forum Calls for
Release of Corruption Documents

By Malia Zimmerman

HawaiiReporter.com

The full story of the corruption that permeated Hawaii's $10 billion charitable trust, the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, to the highest levels of government in Hawaii, has never been told.

But the information that has become public is categorized by 60 Minutes as "The biggest story in Hawaii since Pearl Harbor;" by The New York Times as "A feudal empire so vast that it could never be assembled in the modern world;" and by Howard M. McCue III, the Chairman of the Charitable Planning Committee for the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, as "The most significant legal dispute of our time ... a tale of unbridled ambition, infectious greed, and high drama...."

This saga, involving Bishop Estate trustees, state Supreme Court justices, a former governor and leaders in the Hawaii State Legislature, peaked in 1997.

However, nearly one decade later, critics say there has been no accountability for the many influential people who wrongfully took advantage of Princess Pauahi Bishop's charitable trust - a trust she established in 1884 to fund the education of Hawaiian children, not to fatten the pockets of politicians and trustees.

University of Hawaii Law Professor Randall Roth and U.S. Federal Judge Samuel King, co-authors of a newly published book, Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement and Political Manipulation at America's Largest Charitable Trust, documented the story of the trust from its inception 100 years ago through current times.

At a July 5 forum hosted by Small Business Hawaii, and moderated by Hawaii Reporter, Roth and King shared their thoughts on what led to the extensive problems at the Bishop Estate and what still needs to be done to ensure there is justice and accountability for past wrongdoings.

Joining them were four other prominent Hawaii citizens who played a major role in pushing for reforms including Hawaiian attorney Beadie Dawson, former Honolulu Star-Bulletin Managing Editor Dave Shapiro, former Campaign Spending Director Robert Watada and Congressman Ed Case....

Before the 90-minute panel wrapped up, the panelists shared some of the following insights from their experiences:

Congressman Case was a freshman state legislator in 1995 when he tried to make two major reforms related to the Bishop Estate - take the Supreme Court justices out of the trustee selection process and limit trustee compensation to what was “reasonable” - both of which made him forceful enemies within the legislative leadership, the court and the Bishop Estate.

“I got nailed pretty bad,” Case says of his first attempt in 1995.

The Hawaii Supreme Court justices admitted that they were split on whether they should be in the business of appointing trustees because of perception of cronyism and favoritism.

In 1997, Roth, King and three other well-respected Hawaiians signed their name to a compelling essay entitled “Broken Trust” that documented the power, influence and wrongdoing in the highest levels of the Bishop Estate and the Hawaii government.

Shapiro, then the managing editor of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, published the oped, which rocked the very core of the Hawaiian, political and legal communities.

That was the final catalyst for all but one justice - Robert Klein (now an attorney/lobbyist for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) - to voluntarily step aside from the duty.

Case’s bill to limit trustee compensation also passed, despite major obstacles. At the time, trustees were making more than $1 million a year.

The House, which had Bishop Estate-backed leadership, including House Speaker Joe Souki, and Reps. Terrance Tom and Calvin Say, agreed to a bill that would study the issue. But the Senate sides with Case in establishing compensation limits. In a highly unusual move, Case moved to suspend the rules and adopt the Senate version. Because of extensive pressure from the Hawaiian comunity, the media and the public, the House agreed to the bill by a vote of 50 to 1 with Rep. Say (who is presently the House Speaker) as the one dissenting vote.

Now, as a Congressman for the second district who is running for U.S. Senate against Sen. Daniel Akaka, Case has distinguished himself from his opponent on this issue. Akaka was sympathetic with the ousted trustees, while Case pushed for more accountability and less compensation. Today, Case says there are still “broken trusts” in Hawaii, which need to be addressed....

A great deal of the information Roth and co-author Judge King used to write the Broken Trust was given to them by Watada, the director at the time of the state Campaign Spending Commission.

But Roth says there are still between 1 million and 2 million more documents sealed by the courts that he wants to review and catalogue and believes should be made public.

He hopes trustees will some day be held accountable for their mismanagement. But that is unlikely: they did not pay legal fees for the most part, they took millions of dollars for themselves, they paid off political cronies with trust funds, and held what Roth calls a "world record for breaches of trust."

Roth and King maintain the Broken Trust saga is not over, and neither are the problems for Kamehameha Schools if further safeguards and reforms are not implemented....

~ ~ ~ November 17, 2003

Trustees Celebrate Ruling Upholding
Admissions Policy

The Board of Trustees of Kamehameha Schools today celebrated federal Judge Alan Kay's ruling upholding the Schools' 116-year old policy of offering admissions preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry.

"This is an incredible day for Kamehameha Schools," said board chair Constance Lau. "We are ecstatic that what Hawaiians have always felt was right, what we have always felt was pono, has been upheld today in a court of law."

In upholding the preference policy, Judge Kay noted Princess Pauahi's intent as expressed in 1887 by her husband, Charles Reed Bishop, that her schools educate Hawaiian children first. He also agreed that Hawaiians continue to suffer educational and societal imbalances as a result of historical wrongs.

Kay stressed that Kamehameha Schools is a private institution, and said that in its 1993 Apology Resolution, the U.S. Congress determined that the imbalances resulted in part from the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.

Trustee Douglas Ing noted, "Judge Kay's ruling is important because it recognizes Kamehameha Schools' role in improving the capability and well-being of Hawaiians through education. We understand today's ruling will be appealed and that we face another legal battle in Judge Ezra's courtroom tomorrow, however, we are hopeful that the U.S. judicial system will recognize the importance of Kamehameha to the Hawaiian community and the entire state."

"Kamehameha Schools is a symbol of hope for the Hawaiian community and this ruling is a restoration of that hope," said Trustee Nainoa Thompson. "Today's judgement is one that will further unite the Hawaiian people and all those who care about Hawai`i."

Trustee Diane Plotts expressed gratitude for the overwhelming public support shown over the last few months. "The displays of support from the entire community -- from emails to petition signatures to participation in unity marches and celebrations of Hawaiian culture -- have encouraged us tremendously."

Kamehameha Schools supporters celebrated Judge Kay's ruling with KS trustees by chanting and singing the school song.

Along with his fellow trustees, Admiral Robert Kihune thanked those gathered at court for their unwavering and dedicated support. "I can imagine our beloved Pauahi smiling down on all of us today."

www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20050506110634462&mode=print

~ ~ ~

Colleen Wong is expected to testify as to the facts and circumstances of the Settlement Agreement, and the reasons she believes that Defendant’s acts of sending copies of letters to her regarding wrongful, fraudulent and illegal actions of trustees, employees, independent contractors, and others related to this case, sending copies of these letters to law enforcement and regulatory authorities, and posting copies of these letters on the Internet, constitutes a breach of the Settlement Agreement.

Colleen Wong is also expected to testify regarding her business, professional, personal and political relationships with Bobby Harmon; John Goemans; Roy Hughes; Greg Dunn; Bradley Tamm; P&C Insurance Co.; Mark Polivka; Jean Rolles, Outrigger Hotels; Nainoa Thompson; Dee Jay Mailer; Judge Kevin Chang; Judge Barry Kurren; Faye Kurren; Henry Peters, Peter Savio, Ben Benson; Elizabeth K. Lindsey Buyers, Elizabeth K. Lindsey Buyers, The Nature Conservancy; The Ocean Conservancy; Bishop Museum; Mark Polivka; Milton Holt; Richard Wong; Jeff Stone; Kevin Showe; Kenneth Hipp, Marr Hipp Jones & Pepper; Gilbert Tam; William S. Richardson; Nathan Aipa; Louanne Kam; Lyn Anzai; Hamilton McCubbin; Wally Chin; Sandie Wicklein; Maryanne Inouye; Yukio Takemoto; Robert Katz; Matt Tsukazaki; PricewaterhouseCoopers; Mark McConaghy; Federal Insurance Co.; Marsh & McLennan; Rocco Sansone; John Mullen Company, Inc.; Paul Alston, Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing; Gensiro Kawamoto; Henry Paulson; Goldman Sachs; CB Richard Ellis; Susan Tius, Lissa Andrews, Rush Moore LLP; Guido Giacometti; Sukamto Sia; Apollo Advisors; The Carlyle Group; Henry Kissinger; Investcorp; Trinity Investment; Mitsui Bank & Trust Co.; Alika Thompson; Calvin Say; Clayton Hee; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Hawaii Land Use Commission; Maui County Planning Commission; Colbert Matsumoto; Peter Young; Hawaii Dept of Land & Natural Resources; Michael Chun; Rockne Freitas; James H. Case, Carlsmith Ball LLP; Paul M. Ueoka, Carlsmith Ball LLP; Gerald A. Sumida, Carlsmith Ball LLP; Andrew Pepper, Carlsmith Ball LLP; Judith Neustadter Fuqua, Mary Lou Woo; Steven Guttman, Carol Muranaka, Bruce Bennett, Jean Rolles, Judge Alan Kay, Judge Michael Town, Judge Michael Seabright, Judge James Duffy, Colleen Hirai, Colleen Hanabusa, James Wriston, Kirk Caldwell, David Farmer, James Nicholson, Darren Ah Chong, Arthur Andersen, Peter Hanashiro, Ted Liu, and others to be named upon discovery.