Petition — Yee v. Yee
Supreme Court brief1976
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
RT Oe Oe SAL RT CR NR mere
- Court, U. &
Is FILED
|
APR 2 1976
MICHAEL RODAK, JP. CLERE
SS en
—— += o~=
—— ~--.
-——
no. @5-] 4 29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE, PETITIONER PRO SE
VS.
ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE and/or ALFRED A. YEE & AS-
SOCIATES, HSC*, NO. 6102,
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, HSC*, NO. 5943,
ROBERT HOGAN and/or HOGAN, ROTHER, GRIMES &
BYBEE, HSC*, NO. 5971,
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK, and/or the FAMILY COURT of
the FIRST CIRCUIT of the STATE OF HAWAII, HSC*,
NO. 6008,
DR. BETTY ADAMS and/or HAWAII'S DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH and/or GERRY NAGAHISA and/ or the ADULT
SERVICE BRANCH of the STATE OF HAWAIIS FAMILY
COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT HSC*, NO. 5924,
HAROLD NICKELSEN and/or CONROY, HAMILTON,
GIBSON, NICKELSEN, & RUSH, HSC*, NO. 5969,
JAMES KOSHIBA and/or the HAWAII BAR ASSOCIA-
TION, HSC*, NO. 5970,
ROBERT FRANKLIN, HSC*, NO. 5949,
RESPONDENTS.
it ill, i ei
TT
NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE, PETITIONER PRO SE
VS.
ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE and/or ALFRED A. YEE & AS-
SOCIATES, HSC*, NO. 6102,
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, HSC*, NO. 5943,
ROBERT HOGAN and/or HOGAN, ROTHER, GRIMES &
BY BEE, HSC*, NO. 5971,
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK, and/or the FAMILY COURT of
the FIRST CIRCUIT of the STATE OF HAWAII, HSC*,
NO. 6008,
DR. BETTY ADAMS and/or HAWAII'S DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH and/or GERRY NAGAHISA and) or the ADULT
SERVICE BRANCH of the STATE OF HAWAII'S FAMILY
COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT HSC*, NO, 5924,
HAROLD NICKELSEN and/or CONROY, HAMILTON,
GIBSON, NICKELSEN, & RUSH, HSC*, NO. 5969,
JAMES KOSHIBA and/or the HAWAII BAR ASSOCIA-
TION, HSC*, NO. 5970,
ROBERT FRANKLIN, HSC*, NO. 5949,
RESPONDENTS.
JOINT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JANICE CHING YEE,
Petitioner Pro Se,
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817
*HSC -HAWAII SUPREME COURT.
WILLIAM L. FLEMING of
CADES, SCHUTTE, FLEMING & WRIGHT
Attorneys for Respondents:
ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL;
HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL; and
JAMES KOSHIBA &/OR the HAWAII
BAR ASSOCIATION.
165 S. King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
RONALD AMEMIYA 694
NELSON CHANG 726
Attorney General & Deputy for Respondents:
GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL; and/or
DR. BETTY ADAMS, ET AL;
RONALD AMEMiLYA 694
CEDRIC CHOI 1375
Attorney General & Deputy for Respondent:
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK, ET AL;
HAWAIL STATE CAPITOL
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
MAX GARCIA
Attorney for Respondent:
ROBERT FRANKLIN,
Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center,
190 S. King Street,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
STANLEY KANETAKE
Attorney for Respondent:
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK
228 Kuulei Road
Kailua, Hawaii, 96734
EDWARD Y.C. CHUN of
CHUN, KERR, & DODD
Attorneys for Respondent:
ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, ET AL,
Suite 1408, AmFac Building
700 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
| page
SS ii
CE ce wedececece ii, iil
EEE EE SE iii
inn dccdcopecbsduccceeseseces iii
ns. occ ceeecceccesesedecs 5
ecw ddeneeane 7
a ys) 26
sn cee ecneeseesesees 28
EE ES IO 37
VI. REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS WRIT......... 58
Ne ee eaneeeenss 59
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER PROSE ..... APPENDED
APPENDICES:
STATUTES APPENDED ............... APPENDICES
“A” (and all subsections)—pertains to case HSC #5949;
“B” (and all subsections)—-pertains to case HSC #6102, HSC
#5930, and/or FC-D No. 81258;
“C” (and all subsectiois)—-pertains to cases to be “Consoli-
dated”: HSC #5949
#5943
#5969
#5970
#5971
#5924
#6008
#6102
#5903, Appealed as USSC #75-1143;
“D” (and all subsections)—pertains to unfiled “Motions”,
which could have been filed:
“E” (and all subsections)—-pertains to “EXHIBITS” FOR
RESTITUTION;
“F” (and all subsections) pertains to “FINAL ABSOLUTE
DIVORCE DECREE” and all “Supplemental Decisions”
of the lower Family Court of Hawaii;
“G" (and all subsections)— pertains to evidence of Prejudice
by the lower Circuit Court of Hawaii;
“H”-pertains to more evidence of the Supreme Court of
Hawaii's clerks’ Violation of Legal Rights for Petitioner
Pro Se as well as for all innocent parties;
“I” (and all subsections)—-pertains to all “NOTICE OF
APPEAL” from the lower Circuit Court of Hawaii; includ-
ing Family Court;
TABLE OF CASES
pages
1. DORIS DAY vs. ROSENTHAL, California............ 8
2. GLOSS vs. PEOPLE, 259, Il, 332, 102, NE 763 ........ 10
3. HASLAM vs. MORRISON, 1133 Utah, 14, 190
RN Eat o ee ee 10
4. HUDGINS vs. STATE, 2 Ga. 173, 176 .2.....0...0000- 10
5. JILLSON vs. CAPRIO, (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEGLI-
GENCE, p. 1147 (sec409), vol. #2, 1962) ...........000. 8
6. PEOPLE vs. WINTERS, 171 Cal. App. ............--- 1
STATUTES
|. STATUTES INVOLVED ...........00.055. 28 to 37
2. HAWAII SUPREME COURT RULES:
tt Pc. shadene hasesekeedseanenns 29
ee err ry 14, 29
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY’S
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: EC2-27 31, 52
EC2-28 31, 52
EC2-30 31, 52
EC7-21 16, 19, 31,
44, §2
46, 52
EC7-22 16, 31,
EC7-26 41
DT ee rer er 15, 19,
I a od ie la Bad el he areal 15, 19,
Ss &
3. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES:
OE TD oc cc ccéuecseesueunene’s 7, 24, 26, 28
Ls ok eee leiinnes whee ee 26
Giddens leeds con chnhaennes 26, 29
TD “00 ised eGe deena enhauceneaeees 26
wiawa. . cinch ated Dae dnenenint 3, 26, 29
4. HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES:
CEES TED Sec rsctssdacvsscccvccveds 32
IE a, Sarr oe 9, 32
er Perera e 9, 32
re a a ee ea 9, 32
—
eka wh odie a cutee admin aaa 9, 33
BERR oreo 33
stbiunchsrdhudeultidaceacwes 33
ME dbedlebiwkéukhscksunke Sus 12, 33, 46
a dck-<en nodcneenunbebecos 35
DCCL te tdwetecbeseassdssekecs 33, 45, 51
Es Sweats eon ecenddeeeen dane 34, 45, 51
DT Thctbkndhisocehesdanetuns 5, 6, 7, 34
a re eee ree 35
P4645 0ngdass cheenesdeaneu 35
PRO Atk tudeutnéeseucecoueoans 53
5. HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
Th ccisghashdbhsuteeneninckcasees 18, 20, 36
iD sitncecekunsdvuebeh dhadaeasaved 36
Caktnaeeesestduats ss ssautuceetons 16, 36
DET vuacceukealukbeReededtaceees 44
in dnkAaeuwnncéesedeebunsabedeudied 36
. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AND APPELLANT
PROCEDURE:
Chapter 133:28:sec 2101(c) ...........2.00.. 26, 36
SD IK 606 dw éncdensccadbaon 3, 37, 59
DNS Hck 6henceeeehasscenneenanetecenin 16
TEXT BOOKS
_BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY
ee CE cc ecu ccc uhasucadesennes 10
. CRIMINAL LAW by Donnelly, Goldstein,
& Schwartz, (1st Edition) 1962.............. 1!
. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEGLIGENCE (vol.
Sy MAG ods SRE WERERES Cece ecoocenecen 8
_ LAW OF TORTS by William L. Prosser,
ie Ge OE, i's 5 6k esd antec bendesancees 8, 43
MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES
February 8, 1976 SUNDAY STAR BULLETIN
& ADVERTISER “PARADE” (DORIS DAY
IS 000.5:05640 005 6500s enseuesutsueus 8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1975
NO.
JANICE CHING YEE, PETITIONER PRO SE
Vs.
ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE and/or ALFRED A. YEE & AS-
SOCIATES,
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK,
ROBERT HOGAN and/or HOGAN, ROTHER, GRIMES &
BY BEE.
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK and/or the FAMILY COURT OF
THE FIRST CIRCUIT of the STATE OF HAWAII,
DR. BETTY ADAMS and/or HAWAII'S DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND/OR GERRY NAGAHISA and/or the
ADULT SERVICE BRANCH of the STATE OF HAWAIPS
FAMILY COURT, FIRST CIRCUIT,
HAROLD NICKELSEN and/or CONROY, HAMILTON,
GIBSON, NICKELSEN, & RUSH
JAMES KOSHIBA and/or the HAWAII BAR ASSOCIA-
TION,
ROBERT FRANKLIN,
RESPONDENTS.
JOINT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States, Janice Ching Yee, the
Petitioner Pro Se herein, prays for a Writ of Certiorari to Re-
view and/or Direct the Judgement of Hawaii's Supreme Court
and/or Order Judgement per Discretion, Prerogative and Ini-
tiative of the Supreme Court of the United States against the
Judgements entered in the lower Courts, dated:
1. December 30, 1975, at 4:07 p.m., for case HSC #5949;
(APPENDIX “A(1)”)
2. January 12, 1976, at 3:46 p.m., for case HSC #5949; (AP-
PENDIX “A(1)”)
3. January 12, 1976, at 4:23 p.m., for the “Consolidation of
Appeals”; (APPENDIX “C(1)”)
4.November 3, 1975, at 6:08 p.m. for case HSC #5930;
(APPENDIX “B(1)”)
5. November 17, 1975, at 2:56 p.m., for case HSC 5930; (AP-
PENDIX “B(1)”)
6. November 17, 1975, at 2:57 p.m. for case HSC #5930;
whereby this case has been re-Appealed and is pending
as HSC #6102 in Hawati’s Supreme Court (APPENDIX
“B(1)")
7. February 13, 1976, at 3:47 p.m. for the “Consolidation of
Appeals”; (APPENDIX “C(1)”") and
8. February 13, 1976, at 3:48 p.m. for the “Consolidation of
Appeals”; (APPENDIX “C(1)”)
which:
A. Affirmed the May 2, 1975, and July 18, 1975 “Nunc
Pro Tunc” June 4, 1975 lower Circuit Court Order,
Judgement and Decree for case HSC #5949 (Civil
#44578), which inflicted substantial injury against the
Legal Rights of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se as Petitioner
Pro Se against Hawaii's Supreme Court's affirmation
of the lower Court's dismissal and denial, which
worsened:
B. The Unequitable Terms of the March |, 1973 absolute
divorce (which is not on Appeal). (APP. “B(2)”)
C. Denied Consolidation (APP. “C(1)") of Appeals
against the Conspiracy consisting of:
APP. “C(2) (a)”, Yee vs. Kekernak, HSC NO. 5943,
which was dismissed June 30, 1975 by the lower
Circuit Court of Hawaii.
APP. “C(2) (b)”, Yee vs. Hogan, et al, HSC No. 5971,
which was dismissed and filed June 16, 1975, which
unfairly made Defendants recover costs through
Plaintiff who never was at fault.
APP. “C(2) (c)", Yee vs. Vitousek, et al, HSC NO.
6008, which was dismissed and filed August 28, 1975,
by the lower Circuit Court.
APP. “C(2) (d)”, Yee vs. Nagahisa, et al, and/or Ad-
ams, et al, HSC NO. 5924, which dismissed the Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff against the
unfair granting of Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment by the Orders of the lower Circuit Court
filed April 11, 1975, and whereby Motion for Retrial
2
ee
was denied on May 7, 1975.
APP. “C(2) (e)”, Yee vs. Nickelsen, et al, HSC NO.
5969, which was dismissed and filed June 16, 1975,
which unfairly made Defendants recover costs
through Plaintiff, who never was at fault.
APP. “C(2) (f)", Yee vs. Koshiba, and/or the Hawaii
Bar Association, HSC NO. 5970, which was dis-
missed and filed June 16, 1975, which unfairly made
Defendants recover costs through Plaintiff, who never
was at fault.
All of the Respondents as Defendants-Appellees, were in-
stigators and/or perpetrators, as Conspirators* for the “Con-
spiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Ju-
dicial Process” by Defamatory Coerced Incompetency for
Coerced Ignominy “by Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights
tor Petitioner” Pro Se as Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se, against
their Violation whereby a criminal case evolved out of an or-
dinary divorce case, which was irreconcilable.
Both parties of all cases reside in the State of Hawaii.
PETITIONER PRO SE HEREBY REQUESTS case USSC
#75-1143 be added or joined to This Joint Petition; OR This
Joint Petition be considered a Supplemental Brief for case
USSC #75-1143, according to the USSC RULES, Rule 24 #5, or
the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Chapter
133:28 (sec. 2106).
(*Conspirators*:)
*Alfred Alphonse Yee & or Alfred A. Yee & Associates, HSC #6102
Stephanie Kokernak, HSC #5943
Edward Chun & or Chun, Kerr, & Dodd, HSC #5903, USSC #75-1143
Robert Hogan & or Hogan, Rother, Grimes, & Bybee, HSC #5971
Judge B.M. Vitousek & or the Family Court of the First Circuit of the State
of Hawaii, HSC #6008
Dr. Betty Adams & or Hawaii's Dept. of Health, AND OR Gerry Nagahisa
& or the Adult Service Branch of the State of Hawau’s Family Court,
First Circuit, HSC #5924
Harold Nickelsen & or Conroy, Hamilton Gibson, Nickelsen & Rush,
HSC #5969
James Koshiba & or the Hawaii Bar Association, HSC #5970
Robert Franklin, HSC #5949, pending appeal to USSCtt
*tUSSC- UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PETITIONER PRO SE HEREBY also Requests for Permis-
sion to include “Orders” by Hawaii's Supreme Court, this 2nd
day of April, 1976, wherefore all of the copy for this Petition
was in the final process preceding final printing whereby it was
completed on March 31, 1976, with a few last minute subtrac-
tions or additions; wherefore the following “Orders” of the
Supreme Court of Hawaii, were received this April 2, 1976 and
is hereby appended as APPENDIX “J”:
1. March 31, 1976; at 3:26 p.m.; for case HSC #6102
2. April 1, 1976; at 3:55 p.m.; for case HSC #5943
3. April 1, 1976; at 4:01 p.m.; for case HSC #5971
4. April 1, 1976; at 4:00 p.m.; for case HSC #6008
5. April 1, 1976; at 3:51 p.m.; for case HSC #5924
6. April 1, 1976, at 3:58 p.m.; for case HSC #5969
7. April 2, 1976; at 9:34 p.m.; for case HSC #5970
So, please excuse the inclusion of Rule 20 of the USSC
RULES, for it did apply until this 2nd day of April.
ee ee oe
a
1. OPINIONS BELOW
The Opinions and Judgements of Hawaii's Supreme Court
below for case HSC NO. 5949 for Yee vs. Franklin, hereby
have been included as APPENDIX “A(1)” and APPENDIX
=.
The Judgements of the lower Trial Court of Hawaii's Cir-
cuit Court for case HSC NO. 5949 for Yee vs. Franklin, dated
May 5, 1975 and July 18, 1975, “Nunc Pro Tunc”, June 4,
1975, is hereby included as APPENDIX “A(2)”.
The Opinion and Judgement of Hawaii's Supreme Court
below for case HSC NO. 6102, for Yee vs. Yee, which was
ease HSC NO. 5930, for Yee vs. Yee, has not been decided,
and Petitioner hereby prays the Supreme Court of the United
States can Review this case pending in Hawaii's Supreme
Court and/or Direct a Judgement on these Pleadings for
Petitioner Pro Se for a fast determination of this case before
Judgement is given in said Hawaii Supreme Court, according
to Rule 20 of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
RULES.
The Opinion and Judgement of Hawait’s Supreme Court
for case HSC NO. 5930, is hereby appended as APPENDIX
“BCL”.
The Opinion and Partial Judgement of the lower Trial
Court of Hawaii's Family Court for case HSC No. 6102, dated
March |, 1973; whereby the Statute of Limitations can be
extended to 6 (six) years for Concealment of Malice, according
to HAWAIL REVISED STATUTES, Chapter 657-20, also
against Concealment of Conspiracy; is hereby appended as
APPENDIX “B(2)”.
The Opinion and Judgements of Hawaii's Supreme Court
below for the Consolidation of “Appeals Against Conspiracy
for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial
Process for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for Plain-
tiff-Appellant”, are hereby included in APPENDIX “C(1)”,
and Petitioner Pro Se hereby prays the Supreme Court of the
United States can review ALL of these cases; including case
HSC NO. 5949 which was affirmed for dismissal in the lower
Courts of Hawaii; pending in Hawaii's Supreme Court before
Judgement is given in the aforementioned Hawaii Supreme
Court, according to Rule 20 of the UNITED STATES SU-
PREME COURT RULES. (Judgements made 4/1/76)
The Opinion and Judgment of the lower Trial Court of
Hawaii's Circuit Court for the cases to “Consolidate Appeals
5
Against Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious
Abuse of Judicial Process for Deprivation of Income and
Lega! Rights for Plaintiff Appellant,” Yee vs.:
1) Franklin, HSC #5949 (Judgement below —-APP. “A(2)”)
2) Kokernak, HSC #5943
3) Hogan et al, HSC #597]
4) Koshiba & or the Hawaii Bar Association, HSC #5970
5) Nickelsen et al, HSC #5969
6) Adams et al, & or Nagahisa et al, HSC #5924
7) Vitousek et al, HSC #6008
whereby the Statute of Limitations can be extended to 6 (six)
years, according to HAWAII REVISED STATUTES, Chap-
ter 657-20 for Concealment of Malice for Conspiracy; is
hereby Appended as APPENDIX “C(2) (a-f)”
NOTICE OF APPEAL from the lower Courts to Hawaii's
Supreme Court ts hereby appended as follows:
1. APPENDIX “i(A)” for HSC #5949, for Civ. #44578
. APPENDIX “I(B) (a)” for HSC #6102, for FC-D #81258
. APPENDIX “I(B) (b)” for HSC #5930, for FC-D #81258
. APPENDIX “I(C) (a)” for HSC #5943, for Civ. #44869
. APPENDIX “I(C) (b)” for HSC #5971, for Civ. #44240
. APPENDIX “I(C) (c)” for HSC #6008, for Civ. #45123
APPENDIX “I(C) (d)” for HSC #5924, for Civ. #44263
. APPENDIX “I(C) (e)” for HSC #5969, for Civ. #44244
APPENDIX “I(C) (f)” for HSC #5970, for Civ. #44262
CSCeENDYAHwl
ee
Oe ee, | es 8 ee 8 ee oe nit ee ow ee
Il. JURISDICTION
The Jurisdiction of This Supreme Court of the United
States; whereby it can Review or Direct the Judgement of
these cases; was invoked on the grounds of the following
situations:
1. November 2, 1973—an “Order” for a “guardian ad litem”
was illegally ordered against Petitioner as Plaintiff (Ap-
pellant Pro Se) who herehy Appeals for Extension of the
Statute of Limitation, according to HAWAIT'S REVISED
STATUTES, Chapter 657-20 for limitations of six (6)
years against the “Concealment” of “Malice for Con-
spiracy” OR “Conspiracy for Malice” by nine (9) Con-
spirators* for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse
of Judicial Process as this “guardian ad litem order”
for coerced incompetancy and coerced ignominy by Dep-
rivation of Income and Legal! Rights for Plaintiff Appel-
lant Pro Se, who hereby Appeals as Petitioner Pro Se
against this Violation of Legal Rights whereby the Juris-
diction of This Court was invoked, according to Rule 19
(a & b) of these UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
RULES, wherefore:
(a) “a state court has decided a federal question” “in
a way probably not in accord with applicable de-
cisions of this court”,
for the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and its
AMENDMENTS, specifically; its:
(1) First Amendment for FREEDOM and/or Equal
Protection by Law for ALL FREEDOMS:
(2) Fourth Amendment against “false arrest” ex-“guar-
dian ad litem” or “trustee” “orders” insinuating
incompetency of a capable American woman as
Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se. who hereby Appeals
as Petitioner Pro Se;
(3) Sixth Amendment for a speedy trial by an impar-
tial Judge or to be informed of the nature of the
accusation of incompetancy against Petitioner Pro
Se, who has asked before for representation by
counsel as afforded by this Amendment, also to be
confronted by the witness who was the false accus-
er of spendthrift incompetency against Plaintiff Ap-
pellant as Petitioner Pro Se;
(4) Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual
*page 3.
punishment”, which is also against the Fourth,
Fifth, and Sixth Amendment, unless duly convicted
or which should be protected also by the Due Pro-
cess of Law or
(5) Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment tor due
process of law or for Equal Protection by Law (as
the First Amendment) against “financial enslave-
ment” or “involuntary servitude”, after all Peti-
tioner Pro Se never was incompetent and/ or against
this label and/ or petitioner doesn’t want to work for
my ex-husband Alfred Alphonse Yee and/or his
company Alfred A. Yee & Associates, for alimony
which was and still is unequitable as temporary par-
tial settlement.
(6) Nineteenth Amendment for EQUAL RIGHTS
FOR WOMEN FOR EQUITABLE SETTLE-
MENTS FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT PROSE
AS PETITIONER PRO SE JANICE CHING YEE.
(7) Twenty-Seventh Amendment tor EQUAL RIGHTS.
PERIOD.
OR, (b) “where” Hawaii’s Supreme Court as “a court
of Appeals rendered a decision in conflict with the
decision of another court of Appeals”
whereby the California Court of Appeals does Grant
Women as Mrs. Jillson (page 1147 (sec. 409) of the EN-
CYCLOPEDIA OF NEGLIGENCE) of Jillson vs. Caprio,
who set a precedent tor any woman like Petitioner Pro Se
who can collect Complete Restitution against Legal Re-
straint, for “NOT ONLY THE PERPETRATORS, BU
THE INSTIGATORS OF UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE IS
FULLY RESPONSIBLE TO ITS VICTIM”, and “ANY-
ONE WHO AIDS A FALSE ARREST IS GUILTY!”
(page 1159 (sec. 410) of the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEG-
LIGENCE.) OR, Doris Day, who collected Restitution
against lawyer Gerry Rosenthal, who swindled her out of
hard earned money, rightfully Doris Day’s, wherefor
Doris Day set a precedent for women like Petitioner Pro
Se, who once worked hard while young and didn’t expect
to work in our sunset years or twice for the same money,
or rather expected to rest and play in our old age. For, ac-
cording to William L. Prosser's LAW OF TORTS, page
869, (3rd edition) 1964, for Petitioner as Plaintiff-Appel-
lant Pro Se, who can collect restitution against Illegal
8
|
|
|
|
)
I 6 es pl eI all
om ORE te eae ot aie Oe
Malicious Prosecution by Respondents as Defendants-
Appellees as Conspirators* for Illegal Defense by the Il-
legal “guardian ad litem” “order,” which was Malicious
Abuse of Judicial Process.
OR, (b) “where” Hawaii’s Family Court or Circuit Court
“has decided an important state question in a way
in conflict with applicable state law”
whereby HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES, Chapter
551-27 and/or Chapter 551-30 and/or 551-31 AND/OR
Chapter 551-34 were invoked, thereby invoked the Juris-
diction of This United States Supreme Court; tor it ts
frightening to think how this can affect Hawaii's Amer-
ican citizens or the future generation whereby anvbody
can be suddenly restrained by this terrible bad precedent
which Judge B.M. Vitousek imposed without “due Pro-
cess of Law” as afforded by the U.S. CONSTITUTION
AND ITS AMENDMENTS for no other causes than pre-
judice by the vain lawyers and the vain judge whose van-
ity against criticism can destroy a capable American
human being by defamation, libel and slander by Mali-
cious Abuse of Judicial Process, which therefore invoked
the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court against the
invokement by Hawaii's Supreme Court and/or the Fam-
ily Court Judge B. M. Vitousek or the lower Circuit Judge
N. Kawakami, “which had decided a Federal question in a
way in conflict with applicable decisions of this court”
and/or “decided an important question of Federal Law”
against ‘enslavement’, “which has not been, but should be,
settled by this” Supreme “Court” of the United States.
PETITIONER PRO SE hereby APPEALS to This
United States Supreme Court for a Precedent whereby
This Supreme Court can Order an Amendment for Peti-
tioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee against the lower Trial
Court judge Norito Kawakami, where he can by Joinder,
be included as a party in the suit against Respondent
Judge B.M. Vitousek in case HSC #6008 whereof (Re-
spondent) Judge Norito Kawakami must pay Petitioner
Pro Se Janice Ching $1 million for Restitution against
Judge Norito Kawakami's personal Prejudice which de-
prived Pciitioner of earlier monetary restitution of a mini-
mum of $8 (eight) million for Petitioner Pro Se Janice
Ching Yee or a maximum of $15 (fifteen) million for Peti-
*page 3.
tioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee for restitution for Merit of
Monetary Claims for suffering suffered by Restraint of
Person, whereof Restraint of Trade was caused by it,
which caused Deprivation of more income for Petitioner
Pro Se against the decrease in income and social activities
caused by this which is not the type of living customary
for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, as Petitioner Pro Se,
against the Dismissal of the 8 (eight) cases of Conspiracy
in the lower Trial Court of the Circuit Court, whereof
ALL of the lower Trial Court of the Circuit Court’s Deci-
sions, Judgments, and Orders were VOID for “PREJU-
DICE OF JUDGE”, pg. 978 of BALLENTINE’S LAW
DICTIONARY for “Haslam vs. Morrison,” 1133 Utah;
30 A AM. J. Rev. ed Judges +170 OR VOID FOR “PRE-
JUDICE: an opinion formed before the facts are known
or in disregard of facts.” found on page 978, again, or also
“Hodgins vs. State” or also “Gloss vs. People” on “PRE-
JUDICE’ ‘against Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appel-
lant) Pro Se; as has been pled more than once in all cases.
(Respondent) Judge N. Kawakami, declared his Preju-
dice on April 8, 1975 at 11:46 a.m. before the first Hearing
of April 9, 1975 at 10:30 a.m. for the eight (8) cases of
Conspirators*, except Alfred A. Yee of case of FC-D
#81258, which was still pending in Family Court and
whereof Judge B.M. Vitousek refused to make the final
judgement so the case can be appealed, so Petitioner Pro
Se had to “Appeal Against the Unequitable Terms of the
Final Absolute Divorce Decree for Settlement and Child
Custody”; for Petitioner against Kawakami as a Contri-
butory Conspirator* who said “What if I were to tell you,
you won't get anything out of this?” upon getting permis-
sion to file a “Motion”, which was not exactly in confor-
mity for margins, (APPENDIX “G(a)”) in a five (5) min-
ute conference wherefore Judge Kawakami asked for it,
according to the clerks. This VOIDED Norito Kawa-
kami’s Judgements, wherefore Kawakami should have
disqualified himself in the lower Circuit Court; and there-
fore, the lower court Judgements should not have been
affirmed by Hawaii's Supreme Court: for then it com-
pounded the lower Circuit Court's harmful, prejudicial,
and reversible ERROR. This is Illegal, according to
*page 3.
10
CRIMINAL LAW, by Donnelly, Goldstein and Schwartz,
pages 966-970, “People vs. Winters”, 171 Cal. App. 2d
876, 342, P. 2d 538 (App. Dept. Sup. Crt 1959), the
Supreme Court Ruled there:
“The dismissals were void because the trial Judge (Ka-
wakami and/or Vitousek) acted in a matter where he
openly declared his bias and prejudgement without dis-
qualifying himself.”
Hawaii's Supreme Court should have seen Kawakami's
Conflict and Reversed Kawakami's Prejudiced Judge-
ment; and therefore should have denied any Respondents
as Defendants-Appellees’ Motions for Affirmation of the
lower Circuit Court’s ERROR of PREJUDICE.
.A Hearing was held in Hawaii's Supreme Court on
Oct. 21, 1975 at 9:30 a.m. for Argument in case HSC
#5930 Yee vs. Yee, whereby the argument was read verba-
tim from a prepared testimony by Petitioner as Plaintiff-
Appellant Pro Se, and if This Court Requests, it can be
transcribed or retyped against the refusal by the clerks of
the Supreme Court of Hawaii, or “the Courts” refusal for
copies of transcripts of proceedings, which “so far de-
parted from the accepted and usual course of judicial pro-
ceedings,” as to call for an exercise of this court’s power
of supervision.” Kaimuki High School's class for “Psy-
chological Behavior” was present as witness, as well as
their teacher, Mrs. Loo for this Hearing. This case HSC
#5930: now on Appeal as HSC #6102, was dismissed com-
pletely Dec. 30, 1975, for prematurity; by Decision and
Orders filed:
1) November 3, 1975 at 6:08 p.m. whereby Appellant's
Motions were denied “on the ground that Appellant's
Appeal is premature”,
2) November 17, 1975 at 2:56 p.m., whereby “Appellant's
Motion to Amend Opening Brief for Excusable Error
or Neglect, filed October 20, 1975” was denied, for Ap-
peal was denied by the Order of November 3, 1975”,
3) November 17, i975 at 2:57 p.m., whereby “the Peti-
tion for Rehearing filed on November 5, 1975 is denied
without argument”,
AND hereby appended as APPENDIX “B(1)”, where-
upon these Decisions and Orders mentioned, which was
for case HSC 45930, now is Docketed for Appeal in Ha-
waii's Supreme Court as case HSC #6102, whereby the
Opening Brief was filed March 2, 1976. Petitioner Pro Se
hereby Appeals to This Supreme Court of the United
States to Order the Complete Records of this case for evi-
dence of Merits for Petitioner Pro Se or direct a Judge-
ment on these Pleadings of this Petition against Con-
spiracy for Prejudiced Judicial Persecution by Malicious
Abuse of Judicial Process, as Restraintive Supplemental!
Decisions for Coercion of Non-assertion of Petitioner Pro
Se’s Hawaii Legal Rights as well as American Constitu-
tional Rights against Conspiracy for “Swindle” by Judi-
cial “financial enslavement” and Judicial “involuntary
servitude” for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights
for Petitioner, against also the Coercion for Non-assertion
of Legal Rights against the clerks of Hawan’s Supreme
Court for a bad Court Record for Petitioner, whose good
Court Record can not be shown, due to refusal of the
clerks of Hawaii's Supreme Court for the filing of proper
Motions for Petitioner who hereby presents the Index of
“the Court Record” and to include Petitioner's additions
as presented in the Opening Brief of HSC #6102. and
should have been noted in “the Court Record”, specifical-
ly the record of case HSC #5930, since the clerks were
requested to do so. (APPENDIX “B(3) (a-d”) Petitioner
Pro Se hereby Appeals to This Court to consider this as
more evidence for Merits for Petitioner Pro Se against
the Respondents’ Conspiracy for Coercion of Non-asser-
tion of Legal Rights for Petitioner against their deliberate
Delay as Harassment and or Obstruction of Justice for
Petitioner Pro Se.
. Requests for copies of Transcripts were denied although
the Bailiff Phillips (earlier) said he had taped the pro-
ceedings for the use of “the Court”. This was a Violation
of HAWAITS REVISED STATUTES, Chapter 672-19.
(STATUTES APPENDED) (APPENDIX “A(3)”)
.A Hearing was Ordered and Heard on Dec. 5, 1975 at
10:30 for case HSC #5949, and the last statement heard
was “the Court will take this under advisement”, previ-
ous to the “Order” of APPENDIX “A(1)° and “C(1)”,
dated Dec. 30, 1975 and Jan. 12. 1976.
.On December 5, 1975 was filed, “Motion to Consolidate
Appeals against Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by
Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for Deprivation of
Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant; (and or)
Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings; Memorandums
of Points and Authorities; Affidavit of Plaintiff-Appel-
1?
—
0 PAM win urs ee
eee ee
meeset om
Ce ee ee a
7 eee
lant” against:
1. Stephanie Kokernak, HSC #5943
2. Robert Hogan, et al, HSC #5971
3. Judge B.M. Vitousek, et al, HSC #6008
4. Dr. Betty Adams, et al, and/or Gerry Nagahisa et al,
HSC #5924
. Harold Nickelsen, et al, HSC #5969
. James Koshiba and/or the Hawaii Bar Association,
HSC #5970
7. Robert Franklin, HSC #5949
THE COMPLETE “MOTIONS” ARE APPENDED
oS 4)
FOR MERIT FOR PETITIONER’S APPEAL TO THIS
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
PETITIONER’S JOINT PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. (APP. “C(3)”)
“The Court” could have Granted this “Motion to Con-
solidate” according to Rule 2(d)of HAWAITS SUPREME
COURT RULES as pled, for: “Consolidation. When
cases involving a common question of law or
fact are pending before the Court, it may order
a joint argument and may make other orders
concerning proceedings to avoid any unneces-
sary costs or delay”.
The last case was dismissed earlier and if the other six
(6) cases were to be argued all at once on March 9, 1976,
it Was in essence a “consolidation” of Appeals; so WHY
not Grant the “Motion to Consolidate Appeals Against
Conspiracy”? It was and is a Conspiracy whereby ALL
Respondents Conspired by their Prejudices and Malice,
Instigated, Perpetrated, and, or contributed to for the Pre-
judiced Persecution effected by Judge B.M. Vitousek’s
Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process, as the ex-“guardian
ad litem order” for Illegal Coerced Incompetency against
Due Process of Law against this coerced ignominy by
coerced incompetency and coerced destitution by Depri-
. vation of Income and Legal Rights for Petitioner Pro Se
as Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se, as was motioned and filed
on Dec. 5, 1975 and denied on January 12, 1976. (APP.
“C(3)") and (APP. “D(1)(a to f)”)
13
§. December 19, 1975—-“Motion to Reserve Plaintiff Ap-
pellant’s Rights” was denied filing by the clerks, which
was a Violation of Legal Rights for the Justices to con-
sider the Motion, as well as for Legal Rights for Plain-
tiff-Appellant who was only trying to Amend Pleadings
for Discovery against respondents Alfred Alphonse Yee’s
1974 income per income tax statements, received in April,
1975 after the April 15, 1975 tax date from Robert Frank-
lin, Respondent who deceptively gave the 1973 income tax
statements of A.A. Yee, et al. This can be explained in
detail if needed.
6. December 22, 1975, “Motion for Judgement on the Plead-
ings for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se; Memorandums of
Law in Support of Motion; Affidavit of Plaintiff Appel-
lant Pro Se” was refused filing by the clerks (APPENDIX
“C(5)") which was again Violation of Legal Rights for
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se.
. December 23, 1975—A letter was written to the Justices
of Hawaii's Supreme Court to Order Filing of the Dec. 22,
1975 “Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings for Plain-
tiff Appellant Pro Se, Against the Defendants-Appellees,
who all defaulted, “by failure to serve or file a written
statement in opposition to this motion”, which therefore
“may be deemed a waiver of Objection to the granting of
the motion”, and/or the Defendants-Appellees, didn’t
notify the clerks of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, thereby
Defendants-Appellees as Conspirators* Defaulted, ac-
cording to Rule 6(b) of HAWAITS SUPREME COURT
RULES (APP. “C(6)")
8. Orders were filed on:
1) December 30, 1975 at 4:07 p.m., whereof “the judge-
ment of the Tria! Court” was “affirmed” “granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss” for case HSC #5949,
2) January 12, 1976 at 3:46 p.m., whereof “Petition for
Rehearing for case HSC #5949, filed Jan. 5, 1974
“was denied” “without argument, and
~~
3) January 12, 1976, at 4:23 p.m. whereof “Motion to
Consolidate Appeals against Conspiracy for Preju-
diced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Pro-
cess for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for
*page 3
ae
a ee ee
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee |
ee
Plaintiff Appellant” and “Motion for Judgement on
the Pleadings, filed December 5, 1975” were “denied
without arguments” for all cases; excluding HSC
#6102, which was docketed January 29, 1976 and there-
fore was not included earlier, AND wherefore, these
Orders are appended as follows in APPENDIX “A(1)”.
But by then, the Respondents as Defendants-Anpellees still
had Not Opposed the “Motions” of Dec. 5, 19/5; THERE-
FORE, ALL of the RESPONDENTS AS DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES DEFAULTED for JUDGMENTS ON THE
PLEADINGS FOR PETITIONER PROSE AS PLAIN-
TIFF APPELLANT PRO SE against the Order Denying the
“Motion to Consolidate, etc.” and/or the “Motion for
Judgement on the Pleadings against Hawaii's Courts’ Ille-
gal Malicious Prosecution against Petitione? as Plaintiff Ap-
pellant Pro Se who was the injured and/or aggricved party,
and therefore was the “prosecutor”, not Defendants-Appei-
lees, as Respondents, who acted as [legal Prosecutors. This
is bad enough, but for “the Court” then also denied “Judge-
ment on the Pleadings” for Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se for
Restitution for Merit of Monetary Claims for same Petitioner
Pro Se, who hereby Demands Summary Judgement against
ALL Respondents as Defendants-Appellees, per EXHIBITS
FOR RESTITUTION.
Petitioner hereby challenges these Judgements of Ha-
waii’s Supreme Court, according to HAWAII'S SUPREME
COURT RULES:
1) Rule 16.1, for the Jurisdiction of the Hawaii Supreme
Court for discipline and/or Jurisdiction for control of
its court proceedings, but to deny a good capable
American woman as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who
pleads against the lower Courts’ Prejudiced Judicial
Persecution, Malfeasance, Impropriety, Malicious A-
buse of Judicial Process as Delay for Coercion for Non-
assertion of Legal Rights for Petitioner who Appealed
against all of this? AND/OR
2) Rule 16.2, for the HAWAII SUPREME COURT
RULES’ CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI-
BILITY”, which “shall govern the conduct of all at-
torneys subject to discipline under this Rule”, specifi-
cally for the CODE’S ETHICAL CONSIDERA-
15
ree ens Mn ners
9.
10.
12.
TION’S EC7-22; (STATUTES APPENDED) and with
respect for its ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS’ EC7-
21. (STATUTES APPENDED) against malicious abuse
of Judicial Process
January 9, 1976—letter of Appeal for help for case HSC
#6102 against deliberate blatant “Swindle” or Deprivation
of Income for Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se as Petitioner. (AP-
PENDIX “B(8)(a)”)
January 20, 1976-—-“Motion for Amendment of Exhibits for
Restitution for Damages Suffered by Plaintiff Appellant Pro
Se; Memorandums, Arguments, and Exhibits; Affidavit of
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se,” for the “Consolidation” was
presented for filing; but it was refused filing by the clerks,
who said “the Court” could consider it later, whereby it was
considered and then filed January 21, 1976. (APPENDIX
“C(7)")
. January 21, 1976—‘“Motion for New Trial (for HSC #5949)
and or in the Alternative, Motion for Relief from Order of
January 12, 1976, Denying Petition for Rehearing: Memo-
randums, Arguments, and Exhibit in Support of Motion; Af-
fidavit of Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se was refused filing by
the clerks, but it was timely, according to Rule 59 of HA-
WAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and/or FED-
ERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE against the Order
of Jan. 12, 1976, denying Petition for rehearing, filed Jan.
5, 1976. (APPENDIX “C(8)"— Motion only-cover and Mem-
orandums, etc. not included)
January 22, 1976—letter to the Justices to Order the “Mo-
tion” of January 21, 1976 to be filed, for case HSC #5949
whereby the “Motion” was refused filing after it was sup-
posedly “considered by the Court”, which was in Violation
of Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for Assertion
of Legal Rights for same Petitioner Pro Se. (APP. “C(8-2)”)
. February 3, 1976—“ Motion for Summary Judgement and / or
Judgement on the Pleadings; Memorandums, Arguments
and Exhibits in Support of Motion; Affidavit of Plaintiff Ap-
pellant Pro Se” for case HSC#6102, was denied filing by the
clerks of the Supreme Court for no reason given. A letter
was written and together the “Motion” and the letter was
left to be considered b, the Justices, of Hawaii's Supreme
16
ee Me ee he ote Mee he eS eet ee ee
Ri Oe RE OO Owe
Se et eee
15.
Court, who denied filing of the Motion and Letter, against
“euslavement”. This was a proper “Motion” and/or Appeal
for help against the lower Family Court’s Judicial “financial
enslavement” by Judge B.M. Vitousek’s February 2, 1976,
filed “Eleventh Supplemental Decision”. It could have been
considered, eliminating working on another Opening Brief
of HSC #6102, due March 29, 1976, filed March 2, 1976. This
case HSC #6102 has teen pled as case HSC #5930 from Au-
gust 26, 1975’s Opening Brief for #5930, until dismissed by
Decision and Order for Prematurity on November 3, 1975,
at 6:08 p.m., whereby “Petition for Rehearing”, filed No-
vember 5, 1975 at 3:52 p.m. was denied on Nov. 17, 1975 at
2:57. (APPENDIX “B(4)” letter only—“Motion” not in-
cluded)
. Order filed Feb. 13, 1976, at 3:47, denied Appellant's “Mo-
tion for Amendment of Exhibits for Restitution for Damages
Suffered” for the “Consolidation of Appeals” whereby more
evidence of Alfred A. Yee, et al’s Deception or Alfred A.
Yee’s attorney Edward Chun, et al’s PERJURY for Decep-
tion for Swindle or Deprivation of income for Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Pro Se as Petitioner, for the Justices could have con-
sidered Summary Judgement or Judgement on the Plead-
ings as pled for same Petitioner for Complete Settlement as
Equitable Settlement. (APPENDIX “C(9)”)
Order filed February 13, 1976 at 3:47, denied “Appellant's
Motion to Grant an Injunction During Pendancy of an Ap-
peal, filed on January 26, 1976, being legally defective on its
face,” was “denied without argument”. This Motion was
proper, for Plaintiff-Appellant who hereby challenges the
decision or Order of Hawaii's Supreme Court; for Petitioner
as Plaintiff-Appellant once helped build up the name and
person of Petitioner's ex-husband, Alfred A. Yee, Respon-
dent, who does owe Petitioner a Complete Settlement as
Equitable Settlement, per Restitution of APP. “AXE” and
APP. “AFT” of the Opening Brief HSC #6102 and hereby
appended as APPENDIX “E(i)”, for Petitioner Pro Se
against Judicial “financial enslavement” or Judicial “invol-
untary servitude”, as lending money at no percentage inter-
est, whereby no amount of Pleading seemed to get through
to “the Courts”, who ignored any plea for money or tem-
porary Relief, wherefore there was no recourse than to bor-
row money for 10%, whereof Petitioner should not need to
17
16.
17
do this, which ts cruel and unusual punishment against Peti-
tioner Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, who never committed adul-
tery, crime, or deliberate sin. (APPENDIX “B(9)”)
Order filed February 13, 1976 at 3:48, “denying Appellant's
Motion for Reconsideration of Orders of January 12, 1976
denying “Motion to Consolidate Appeals Against the Con-
spiracy for Prejudiced Persecution for Malicious Abuse of
Judicial Process tor Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights
for Plaintift-Appellant” and or “MOTION FOR JUDGE-
MENT ON THE PLEADINGS” per Rule /2(c) of HA-
WAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and/or FED-
ERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND/ORSUM-
VARY JUDGEMENT per Rule 56(a) of THESE RULES.
This Order was after Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s letter of
December 23, 1975, to the Justices, with a request to
GRANT AND ORDER JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEAD-
INGS against the Defendants Appellees as Respondants,
who ALL Defaulted. (APPENDIX “C(10)") How come the
Court didn’t consider Respondents’ (as Defendants Appel-
lees) DEFAULT?
?.On February 17, 1976, “Objections to Orders of Feb. 13,
1976, Denying Reconsideration of the Dec. 5, 1975 “Motion
to Consolidate Appeals, etc. and or Orders Denying Amend-
ments of Exhibits for Restitution; Motion to Alter Order of
February 13, 1976, or Retrial of all cases, Memorandums,
etc.; Affidavit of Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se, was denied fil-
ing by the clerks, who said it was denied filing by “the
Court”, not divulging names of “the Court” in the back
rooms, who then were also in Violation for Coercion of Non-
assertion of Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se as
Petitioner for Respondents’ Default including Alfred Al-
phonse Yee, et al, and or Edward Chun, et, who were the
co-instigators and/or perpetrators of the Conspiracy*, al-
though their names were not mentioned in the title, since
they were dismissed earlier and refused inclusion by the
clerks. Their attorneys received copies of these “Motions”,
whereby Pleadings against them, were included. The “Mo-
tion to Consolidate, etc.”, filed Dec. 5, 1975, was denied fil-
ing earlier by the clerks, and/or “the Court” unless the
names of Alfred Yee et al and, or Edward Chun, et al were
deleted from the title. (APPENDIX “C(!1)”)
*page 3
1%
mf
p— “> ee ee ee ee ee ee eee)
18.
19.
February 17, 1976—“Objection” and/or Motion to Recon-
sider” “Order of Feb. 13, 1976” for HSC #6102, HSC #5924,
and HSC #6008 was refused filing by the clerks which was
again Violation of Petitioner's Legal Rights, against the
clerks’ Conflict and/or the Conflict of “the Court” for Con-
tributory Conspiracy for Coercion of Non-assertion of Lega!
Rights and Income for Plaintiff-Appellant (APPENDIX
“B(8)(b)"); (APP. “C(13)"); and (APP. “C(14)”)
February 20, 1976—“Motion for Temporary Monetary Relief
Memorandums, Arguments, and Exhibit in Support; Affi-
davit etc.” for case HSC #6102 was denied filing by the
clerks; then denied by “the Court” on Feb. 20, 1976; then
March 2, 1976. This unfiled “Motion for Temporary Mone-
tary Relief” included a request for the Justices to Order fil-
ing of “Objection, etc., and/or Motion to Reconsider, etc.”
for:
l)the “Consolidation” of the cases named in the Dec. 5,
1975 “Motion to Consolidate Appeals Against Conspir-
acy”
2) case HSC 5924
3)case HSC 6008
4) case HSC 6102
The note of denial by clerk Suzuki, was Illegal Violation of
Assertion of Petitioner's Legal Rights, according to HA-
WAIT SUPREME COURT RULES, Rule 16.1 and Rule 16.2
and/or HSCR’s CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI-
BILITY’S ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS, specifically
EC7-21, against Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for
Non-assertion of Legal Rights for Petitioner Pro Se for the
U.S. Constitution and all of its Amendments, specifically
Amendment One (1) for Equal Freedom and/or Equal Pro-
tection by Law for Freedom and/or Amendment Six (6) fora
“fast trial”, unhampered by Delay as Obstruction of Justice
for Petitioner Pro Se hereby is appended. (APPENDIX “D
(6)"—the note only) The Motions of Feb. 17, 1976, not in-
cluded. were due Feb. 19, 1976, so Petitioner as Appeilant
won't lose the Appeal. Petitioner’s intentions are good for
the filing of these Objections and Motions, as can be evi-
denced by signed receipis from each of Respondents as Ap-
pellees’ lawyers, dated Feb. 20, 1976, for the “Motion for
Iemporary Relief’, (because of the “Consolidation,” they
19
20.
each received a copy) AND/OR certified mail receipts for
the Feb. 17, 1976 “Motions” (APP. “B(5)") THESE “MO-
TIONS” ALL WERE AGAIN PRESENTED, TO BE
FILED “NUNC PRO TUNC” DATE OF MOTIONS, AT
THE MARCH 9, 1976 HEARING of the six cases in Ha-
waii's Supreme Court against:
Kokernak, HSC #5971
Hogan, et al, HSC #597]
Adams, et al, &/ or Nagahisa, et al, HSC #5924
Nickelsen, et al, HSC #5969
Vitousek, et al, HSC #6008
Koshiba &/or the Hawaii Bar Assoc., HSC #5970
February 23, 1976-—being unsuccessful earlier in obtaining a
date for the Notice of Motion, it was deleted out of the “Mo-
tion to Strike Judge Vitousek’s Eleventh Supplemental De-
cision; Motion for Summary Judgement OR Judgement on
the Pleadings for Appellant as Petitioner, both “Motions”
“Nunc Pro Tunc” as of Feb. 2, * (Really Feb. 3, excuse this
inadvertant mistake) 1976 Pleading to Hawaii's Supreme
Court and this was filed at 9:32 a.m., using the unfiled Feb.
3, 1976 Pleading to Hawaii's Supreme Court as Exhibit “A”
for this “Motion”. As Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, I try to do
the best I can to present my Pleadings for Judgement by Ha-
waii’s Courts, who don’t seem to hear me right or seem to be
personally against me, for | reaily try for a “fast determina-
tion” of this case FC-D #81258, HSC #5930, and/or HSC
#6102, whereby FC-D #81258 should be completed against
the lower Family Court’s Judge B. M. Vitousek’s Malfeasant
Conflict as a Conspirator* for Prejudiced Persecution by
Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process by Eleven Supplemen-
tal Decisions and/or at least five (5) other “orders”, all of
which were for Deliberate Delay for Malicious Injury of
Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se as Petitioner, Pro Se, who hereby
Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court against this and Malice
by Judge Vitousek and/or the Defendants Appellees as Re-
spondents for Conspiracy for Delay as Harassment through
ELEVEN HEARINGS from Feb. 12, 1973 until March 25,
1976 as the last Hearing, which could have been stipulated
for Non-hearing or Rather for Judgement on the Pleadings,
according to Rule 12(c) of HR of CP. as pled earlier and/or
*page 3
20
Tt et a SO pee i ew
ee ee ee se ee pe ee ee Se
ee ee Or RS ee eee ee ee eee
21.
22.
23.
24.
throughout most of the Hearings for Complete Settlement
as Equitable Settlement, and/or as the most feasible solu-
tion for the divorced couple, as pled and will This Court
please excuse the persistence by Petitioner Pro Se who
thinks 1 AM RIGHT, against coerced destruction by coerced
incompetancy by defamation for coerced ignominy by co-
erced destitution Libel, and slander by coerced non-asser-
tion of Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se as Peti-
tioner Pro Se, who hereby APPEALS to This U.S. Su-
preme Court for Help; for I cannot afford $5000.00 as a re-
tainer fee for Legal help and | have appealed to more than
100 local lawyers as members of the Hawaii Bar Association
for help, but nobody would help on a contingency basis
(APPENDIX “B(6)”)
February 27, 1976--Order by HSC, denying Assignment of
HSC #5930, the number of the original Appeal for case FC-
D #81258, to case HSC #6102, filed Feb. 11, 1976. (APP.
“Bi 7)")
March |, 1976-—note of denial by “the Court” signed by Ed.
K. Suzuki. (APPENDIX “B(5)”)
March 2, 1976--Opening Brief for HSC #6102 is filed, and
hereby is appended, the Indices for the Record on Appeal
and Supplemental Records AND additions supplied by Peti-
tioner Pro Se for conformity to the evidence against Viola-
tion of Legal R -hts for Petitioner for assertion of Legal
Rights for Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se as Petitioner Pro Se.
(APP. “B(3)”)
March 2, 1976-—Notice of hearing was set for cases Yee vs.:
Kokernak, HSC NO. 5943
Hogan, et al, HSC NO. 597]
Vitousek, et al, HSC NO. 6008
Nagahisa, et al, &/or Adams, et al, HSC NO. 5924
Nickelsen, et al, HSC NO. 5969
Koshiba &/or the Hawaii Bar Association HSC NO. 5970
to be argued and heard on March 9, 1976, from 9:30 to 10:30
a.m. whereby Koshiba’s case was to be heard at 10:30 a.m.
This was an hour and a half accorded for five (5) cases,
which ordinarily should be argued for 2'4 hours, a half hour
each case, allowing each side 15 (fifteen) minutes minimum.
(APP. “D(1)(a to fy")
21
25. March 5, 1976- letters of acknowledgement were mailed by
certified mail after the Hawaii's Supreme Court’s clerks re-
fused to accept the letters, which gave a clearer picture of
“Motions” to be argued in the Hearing of March 9, 1976.
These were received on March 8, 1977, then filed, where-
upon clerk Makikau made the comment publicly on March
9, 1976, “the Court had to xerox 5 copies”, which never hap-
pened before or was never requested before. This extra ex-
pense of certified mail to get a letter receivea by the Courts
is also a small example of coercion of spending for extra un-
necessary expenses for the Defamation as a coerced “spend-
thrift”, which is Respondent Alfred A. Yee’s fault and not
Petitioner Pro Se’s against Alfred A. Yee who would pay a
tax counsel $5,723.00 to deprive Alfred's ex-wife Petitioner
Janice C. Yee of $1250.00 which would have been spent on
Alfred’s or Janice’s children. ((APP. “B(8)(a)”)(unfiled))
(APPENDIX “D(2)(a to f)”)
. March 8, 1976--another letter of acknowledgement (APP.
“D(3)") was presented for filing, marked “Received”,
March &, 1976, but not approved by the Justice whereby Jus-
tice Bert T. Kobayashi, who reclused himself out of Koshi-
ba's case for consanguinity, because Kobayashi Junior ts
Koshiba’s partner of Law, however refused to recluse him-
self out of the other eight (8) cases of the Conspiracy, al-
though Justice Baird Kidwell reclused himself out of all
cases because of his consanguinity for once having worked
for Goodwill, Anderson, and Quinn, attorneys for Edward
Chun, et al, Respondents of USSC NO. 75-1143, filed Feb.
12, 1976, wherefor Petitioner Pro Se hereby Appeals to This
U.S. Supreme Court to include this case USSC NO. 75-1143
as a party to This Joint Petition, whereby all Pleadings can
conform against all Respondents of the Conspiracy for Pre-
judiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process
for Judicial “financial enslavement” and/or Judicial “invol-
untary servitude” by Deprivation of Income and Legal
Rights for Petitioner Pro Se, against the refusal of Justice
Bert T. Kobayashi to recluse himself, but he voted and
signed the Order, dated October 6, 1975 denying “Motion
for Reconsideration of Order of September 9, 1975, and/or
Motion for Summary Judgement for Plaintiff-Appeliant,
filed September 11, 1975.” This can be found in Appendix
“A” of case USSC #75-1143 of Yee vs. Chun, et al. wherefor
Kobayashi’s Conflict for Dismissal of the cases so Respon-
22
54
27.
dent Koshiba’s case can be dismissed can be confirmed
should Justice Bert T. Kobayashi’s voting record be nega-
tive; for Respondent as Defendants-Appellees Edward Chun,
et al conducted a harmful defense for Malicious Injury of
Petitioner Pro Se, whose inadvertance forgot to mention this
in the Pleadings for case USSC #75-1143; and may these
Pleadings be considered part and parcel of ALL cases.
APP.“D(3)”
arch 9, 1976— Hearing for Yee vs.:
Kokernak, HSC #5943
Hogan, et al, HSC #5971
Judge B.M. Vitousek, et al HSC #6008
Adams et al, &/or Nagahisa et al, HSC #5924
Nickelsen et al, HSC #5969
Koshiba &/or Hawaii Bar Association HSC #5970
whereof the testimony for Petitioner Pro Se was prepared
and/or read verbatim, expecting the worse and/or hoping
for the best for a fast Order for Judgement on the Pleadings
for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se OR even a fast Order for
“Temporary Monetary Relief” for money Petitioner should
not have been deprived of for 1975 (APP. “B(8)(a)”) since
the alimony was 2/3 of fixed expenses. It was and is so small.
It was only a check for $1250.00 which would have satisfied
a number of debts until Complete Settlement for Plaintiff
Appellant Pro Se who cannot understand the lower Courts
of Hawaii OR the Defendants-Appellees who are destitute
of compassion for Petitioner who didn’t deserve coerced
destitution. Presented to Hawaii's S.C. Justices to Order the
previously mentioned “Motion for Temporary Monetary Re-
lief” to be filed at this Hearing of March 9, 1976, was also
included as mentioned “Motions” dated Feb. 17, 1976 for:
“Objection, etc. and/or Motion to Reconsider, etc.” for:
1)the “Consideration” of the cases named in the Dec. 5,
1975 “Motion to Consolidate Appeals Against Con
spiracy.”
2)case HSC NO. 5924
3)case HSC NO. 6008
4)case HSC NO. 6102
Also included were signed receipts acknowledging receipt of
this Feb. 20, 1976 “Motion for Temporary Monetary Relief”,
which included the “Objections and Motions” for Feb. 17.
1976 above, and certified receipts (APP. “D(4)”) for these
Feb. 17, 1976 “Objections” and “Motions” mentioned above,
for Petitioner's good intentions to Appeal or not lose the Ap-
23
28.
30.
peal. The Civics Class of teachers Mrs. Conquest and Mrs.
Ogasewara of Aiea High School are witnesses who were
present as observers for the Hearing. Hereby are appended
“Exhibits for Restitution asked for against Respondents
who were all “Guilty”, according to the ENCYCLOPEDIA
of NEGLIGENCE (vol. #2) page 1147 (sec. 409) and) or
page 1159 (sec. 410) for Jillson Vs. Caprio, “ANYONE
WHO AIDS A FALSE ARREST IS GUILTY!” OR tor
Judgement on the Pleadings for Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se
as Petitioner Pro Se against Defendants Appellees (Respon-
dents) who al// Defaulted. (APP. “C(12)") All of this has
been mentioned in the Pleadings for Petitioner Pro Se.
Marci 19, 1976—-a letter requesting a copy of transcript was
denied filing or unreceived by the clerks, which was again
Violation of Petitioner's Legal Rights, whereof although ar-
gued it was against HRS+, Chapter 622-19, (STATUTES
APPENDED) they still persisted. The clerks said the Bailiff
made the tapes for “the Court’s” use and upon argument
said “what if it was erased?”, wherefore Petitioner Pro Se
hereby pleads for the U.S. Supreme Court to Direct Ha-
waii’s S.C.+ on this matter of copies of Transcripts for ac-
cording to Rule 19(1)(b), wherefore Hawaii's S.C. “has so
far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings” and/ “or so far sanctioned such a departure by
a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s power
of supervision.” May this also apply to filing methods. Also,
Petitioner can supply a copy of my testimony in Cuurt,
whereby it was read verbatim except for a couple of side
comments and a short recess, forgetting Kobayashi was sup-
posed to be reclused for Koshiba, whereof Circuit Judge Ar-
thur Fong substituted for Justice Bert T. Kobayashi for the
case against Koshiba. (APP. “A(3)(b)”) Letter of denial was
received Apr.2, 1976, filed Apr.1, 1976, (APP.“A(3)(6)")
_ March 22, 1976—“Motion for Relief of Judgement” for case
FC-D #81258 was filed in Circuit Court, whereby this case
should have a final Judgement, Order, or Decree, since it
was only a simple divorce case and has been appealed to Ha-
waii's Supreme Court against the “Unequitable Terms ot
the Final Absolute Divorce (Final, and not on Appeal) De-
cree and Child Custody.” (APP. “B(10)”)
March 22, 1976—“Amendment of Motion for Relief of
Judgement for case FC-D, #81258, was also filed and hereby
24
NN Ch lle Rll eb LA tae tata se he Come te
Se
ae oe. nee ee ee) eee pee er)
Ph ne Ee ee ee
3]
32
appended for Appeal to This U.S. Supreme Court for Peti-
tioner Pro Se against Judge B.M. Vitousek’s Violation of
Petition Pro Se’s Legal Rights to include AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and all AMENDMENTS,
in particular AMENDMENT ONE (1) for FREEDOM and
or AMENDMENT SIX (6) for a fast and speedy trial, and
include all amendments specifically mentioned in this Joint
Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (APP. “B(10)”)
. March 23, 1976—“Motion to Amend Opening Brief” was
filed in Hawaii's Supreme Court for Case HSC #6102, to in-
clude the March 22, 1976 “Motions” (both) filed in the Fam-
ily Court of the First Circuit Court of Hawaii, and hereby
appended for a faster determination of This case (FC-D
#81258, which does not have a final Judgement yet) HSC
#6102 pending the possibility of a Judgement on the Plead-
ings for Petitioner Pro Se for This United States Supreme
Court to Order it if Petitioner’s Pleadings please This Su-
preme Court of the United States for Judgement on the
Pleadings for $3 million for Petitioner Pro Se, Janice Ching
Yee to set a precedent for Complete Settlement for any cap-
able American woman as Petitioner as Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se, who once helped build up the name, reputation, and
company of Petitioner’s ex-husband Respondent Alfred Al-
phonse Yee, et al. (APP. “B(!0)") and (APP.“E(1)"’)
March 25, 1976—Hearing was heid in the lower Family
Court for case FC-D #8158, at 2 p.m. for the “Motions” of
March 22, 1976, whereof the Hearing could have been fore-
gone and or Judgement on the Pleadings for Plaintiff (Ap-
pellant) Pro Se Janice Ching Yee really could have been the
most generous gesture on the part of Defendants (Appellees)
Altred Alphonse Yee et al, or on the part of the poor Judge
B.M. Vitousek, who already had called ten previous Hear-
ings, wherefore this judicial “enslavement” seems to de-
crease income and legal rights after each Hearing for Plain-
tiff (Appellant) Pro Se as Petitioner who cannot seem to find
recourse and already dread the answer to be given in a
week. The answer could have been given in the Hearing
since the Judge read both of the “Motions” and all of the
Pleadings previously. (APP. “B(10)")
THEREFORE, THEJURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
has been invoked, since, according to the UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT RULES, Rule 1%1)(a & b):
“(a) Where a state court has decided a federal ques-
25
tion of substance not theretofore determined by
this court, or has decided it in a way probably not
in accord with applicable decisions of this court.
“(b) Where a court of appeals has rendered a decision
in conflict with the decision of another court of ap-
peals on the same matter; or has decided an impor-
tant state” “question in a way in conflict with ap-
plicable state” “law; or has decided an important
question of federal law which has not been, but
should be, settled by this court; or has decided a
federal question in a way in conflict with applicable
decisions of this court; or has so far departed from
the accepted and usual course of judicial proceed-
ings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by a
lower court, as to call for an exercise of this court's
power of supervision.”
whereby Petitioner's Joint Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
can be reviewed by This Court, for Supervision.
The Jurisdiction of This Supreme Court of the United
States also reside on the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
AND APPELLATE PROCEDURE, Chapter 133, Title 28,
Section 2101(c); THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES,
Rule 19(1 fa & b), Rule 22(3), Rule 23, specifically, not
exclusively Rule 23(5), and/or Rule 24(5).
PETITIONER PRO SE hereby Petitions to This Court
for a Writ of Certiorari in the above captioned cases for a
Show Cause Order also, whereof, this Petitioner hereby
prays that an Order be issued directed to the said Honor-
able Supreme Court of Hawaii, requiring it to Show Cause
in This Court of the United States, at a time to be desig-
nated by This Court for:
ill. QUESTION: WHY DOESN'T HAWAII SUPREME
COURT BELIEVE IN JUSTICE FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE, as
Petitioner, JANICE CHING YEE?
|. Why does it not direct a new Judgement end or va-
cate the Judgement below?
2. Why does it not Review and or Reconsider the Hawaii
Supreme Court’s own Orders, which were in Reversi-
ble FRROR?
3. Why does it not Grant the “Motion to Consolidate Ap-
peals Against Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution for
Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for Deprivation of
26
— 7
es er ee eet en we een ee Tee
os ee ek ot Lae
wn
10.
Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant; MO-
TION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS:
Memorandums, etc.?” (APPENDIX “C(3)”)
. Why aren't the Justices consistent about reclusal?
. Why doesn’t Hawaii’s Supreme Court Order Reversal
OR, VOID the lower Circuit Court Judge N. Kawa-
kami’s VOID PREJUDICED JUDGEMENTS, instead
of affirming the lower court’s judgements?
. How can a Judge sit in Judgement and not-be a member
of the Hawaii Bar Association?
. Why doesn’t Hawaii’s Supreme Court believe in
the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ITS AMENDMENTS FOR PETITIONER PRO SE.
. Why doesn’t Hawaii's Supreme Court believe a woman
from Hawaii can set a precedent for Hawaii for Com-
plete Settlement for Equitable Settlement for a Good
Woman for Final Absolute Divorce of 20 years of mar-
riage and five (5) legitimate children to Petitioner Pro
Se Janice Ching Yee (for the record) who never com-
mitted adultery, crime, or deliberate sin?
. Why does it deny a copy of the Transcript or tape of the
Court proceedings of any case in Hawaii's Supreme
Court?
Why don’t the Justices contro! the clerks and their deci-
sions to file or not file by “the Court” and/or who is
“the Court”
27
IV. STATUTES INVOLVED
HAWAIPS SUPREME COURT WAS WRONG and com-
mitted harmful, prejudiced, reversible ERRORS by af-
firming the lower Circuit Court Trial Court’s Decision,
Judgement, and Order in case HSC #5903, docketed, and
Pending Appeal as case USSC 75-1143; and/or case HSC
#5949, presented for Appeal this day. The STATUTES IN-
VOLVED for the aforementioned cases and the following
seven (7) cases: Janice Ching Yee vs.:
1) Alfred Alphonse Yee, HSC #6102
2) Stephanie Kokernak, HSC #5943
3) Robert Hogan, et al, HSC #5971
4) Judge B.M. Vitousek, et al, HSC #6102
5) Nagahisa, et al, & or Adams, et al, HSC #5924
6) Harold Nickelsen, et al, HSC #5969
7) Koshiba &/ or the Hawaii Bar Assoc., HSC #5970
are on Appeal in Hawaii's Supreme Court and hereby Ap-
pealed to This Supreme Court of the United States are:
|. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES:
1) Rule 20, whereof “a writ of certiorari to review a case
pending in a court of appeals, before judgment is giv-
en in such court. will be granted only upon a showing
that the case is of such imperative public importance
as to justify the deviation from normal appellate pro-
cesses and to require immediate settlement in this
court.”
2) Rule 19(1) (a & b), whereof “Il. A review on writ of
certiorari is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
discretion, and will be granted only where there are
special and important reasons therefor. The following.
while neither controlling nor fully measuring the
court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons
which will be considered:
(a) Where a state court has decided a federal question
of substance not theretofore determined by this
court, or has decided it in a way probably not in
accord with applicable decisions of this court.
(b) Where a court of appeals has rendered a decision
in conflict with the decisions of another court of
appeals on the same matter: or has decided an
important state” “question in a way in conflict
with applicable state” “law; or has decided an im-
portant question of federal law which has not
28
ee ee he eS ee ee ee oT eee
Oe re a OB Ort ese es Oe
A ere COA Re noe ag tt OF sh
RBA. Ln eee Bi»
been, but should be, settled by this court; or has
decided a federal question in a way in conflict
with applicable decisions of this court: or has so
far departed from the accepted and usual course
of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such
a departure by a lower court, as to call for an
exercise of this court’s power of supervision.”
3) Rule 23 in its entirety, whereof specifically:
“5. Where several cases are sought to be reviewed on
certiorari to the same court that involve identical
or closely related questions, it shall suffice to file
a single petition for writ of certiorari covering all
the cases.”
4) Rule 24, #5. specifically, according to the discretion
of the Justices of This Honorable Supreme Court of
the United States:
“5. Any party may file a supplemental brief at any
time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is
pending calling attention to new cases not” pre-
sented “at the time of his last filing.”
2. HAWAITS SUPREME COURT RULES:
1) Rule | (a) (1):
“(a) Applicability of Other Court Rules: Definitions.
(1) The Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, the Hawaii
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the District Court
Rules of Civil Procedure and the District Court
Rules of Penal Procedure are hereby adopted as
a part of these rules whenever applicable.”
2) Rule 2(d): “Consolidation. When cases involving a
common question of law or fact are pending be-
fore the court, it may order a joint argument and
make other orders concerning proceedings to
avoid any unnecessary costs or delay.”
3) Rule 6(b):
“6. MOTIONS.
(b) Time. A copy of the motion shall be served on
opposite party not less than 10 days before the
hearing, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
The moving party shall serve and file with his mo-
tion a brief written statement of reasons in suppert
of the motion and the authorities on which he re-
lies. The adverse party, if he intends to oppose the
motion, shall serve and file a brief written state-
29
ment of reasons in opposition to the motion and
the authorities on which he relies in such manner
that they will be received not later than 5 days
after he has been served, or earlier if ordered by
the court. Failure to serve or file a written state-
ment in opposition to a motion, or failure to ap-
pear at the hearing may be deemed a waiver, of
objection to the granting” “of the motion. A party
who does not oppose a motion shall notify the
clerk and opposing counsel promptly.
4) Rule 16. #16.1 and #16.2:
“RULE 16. DISCIPLINARY RULES.
16.1 Jurisdiction. Any attorney admitted to practice
law in this State and any attorney specially ad-
mitted by a court of this State for a particular pro-
ceeding is subject to the exclusive disciplinary
jurisdiction of the supreme court and the Board
hereinafter established. Nothing herein contained
shall be construed to deny to any court such pow-
ers as are necessary for that court to maintain
control over proceedings conducted before it,
such as the power of contempt, nor to prohibit
any bar association from censuring+ a member or
suspending or expelling a member from member-
ship in the as,ociation.”
+This is against Amendment | of the United States
Constitution for FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
OR PRESS AND/OR PETITION against Mali-
cious Abuse of Judicial Process.
16.2 Grounds for Discipline.
(a) The Code of Professional Responsibility, at-
tached hereto as Exhibit A, as amended by this
court, shall govern the conduct of all attorneys
subject to discipline under this Rule.
(b) +Acts or omissions by an attorney which vio-
late the Code of Professional Responsibility
shall constitute misconduct and shall be
ground for discipline, whether or not the act
or omission occured in the course of an attor-
ney-client relationship.”
+THIS against Respondents Hogan, et al, and/or
30
ae ey .
— ee Pn Pee re 'F re eee a or Chines bd sited Ge git —T es
se
Respondents Koshiba and/or the Hawaii Bar As-
sociation.
A.“THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY’S ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1) EC2-27:
2) “EC2-28:
3) “EC2-30:
4)“EC7-2.
5) “EC7-22:
“Regardless of his personal feelings, a
lawyer should not decline representations
because a client or a cause is unpopular or
community reaction is adverse.”
The personal preference of a lawyer to avoid
adversary alignment against judges, other
lawyers, public officials, or influential mem-
bers of the community does not justify his
rejection of tendered employment.”
Employment should not be accepted by a
lawyer when he is unable to render compe-
tent service or when he knows or it is obvi-
ous that the person seeking to employ him
desires to institute or maintain an action
merely for the purpose of harassing or mali-
ciously injuring another.”
The civil adjudicative process is primarily
designed for the settlement of disputes be-
tween parties, while the criminal process is
designed for the protection of society as a
whole. Threatening to use, or using, the
criminal process to coerce adjustment of
private civil claims or controversies is a sub-
version of that process; further, the person
against whom the criminal process is so
misused may be deterred from asserting his
legal rights and thus the usefulness of the
civil process in settling private disputes is
impaired. As in all cases of abuse of judicial
process, the improper use of criminal pro-
cess tends to diminish public confidence in
our legal system.”
Respect for judicial rulings is essential to
the proper administration of justice: how-
ever, a litigant or his lawyer may, in good
faith and within the framework of the law,
take steps to test the correctness of a ruling
of a tribunal.”
3] oa
3.
2) “551-27
3) “551-30
4) “551-31
VAITS REVISED STATUTES
Guardians of insane persons and spend-
thrifts; definitions. The words “insane per-
son” include every idiot, onocompos, luna-
tic. and distracted person, and word “spend-
thrift” includes every one who is liable to be
put under guardianship on account of exces-
sive drinking, gaming, idleness, or debauch-
ery. These words shall be so construed in
all the provisions relating to guardians and
wards, contained in this or any other
statute.”
Notice, hearing, and appointment of guardi-
an of insane person. When the relations or
friends of any insane person apply to any of
the circuit court judges to have a guardian
appointed for such person, the judge shall
cause notice to be given to the supposed in-
sane person of the time and place appointed
for hearing the case, not less than fourteen
days before the time so appointed. The
judge shall also cause notice to be given to
the husband, wife, parent, or any child or
children of the supposed insane person if
any there be residing within the jurisdiction
of the court.”
Guardian of spendthrift, petition for. When
any person by excessive drinking, gaming,
idleness, or debauchery of any kind, so
spends, wastes, or lessens his estate, as to
expose himself or his family to want or suf-
fering, his friends or relations may present
a complaint to any of the judges herein-
before mentioned setting forth the facts and
circumstances of the case, and praying to
have a guardian appointed for him.”
Notice, hearing, appointment. The judge
shall cause notice to be given to such sup-
posed spendthrift, of the time and place ap-
pointed for hearing the case, not less than
fourteen days before the time so appointed.
If after a full hearing it appears to the judge
that the person complained of comes within
32
ee ee ee Oe ee eee LT ere Py
hen be an tle Weed
fan Sortrens ee
;
;
;
g
5) “551-34
6) “602-5
7) “605-2
8) “622-19
9) 641-4
the description contained in section 551-30,
he shall appoint a guardian of his person
and estate, with the powers and duties here-
inafter specified.
Expenses of defense of insane person or
spendthrift. When a guardian is appointed
for an insane person or spendthrift, the
judge shall make an allowance to be paid by
the guardian, for all reasonable expenses in-
curred by the ward in defending himself
against the complaint.” +
+Petitioner Pro Se never was a spendthrift,
but even a spendthrift would get more than
2/3 fixed expenses for defense of the charge,
wouldn't they?
Jurisdiction and powers. The Supreme
Court shall have appeliate jurisdiction to
hear and determine all questions of law, or
of mixed law and fact, which are properly
brought before it on exceptions, error, or ap-
peal duly perfected from any other court,
judge, magistrate, or tribunal, according to
law or by reservation of any circuit court or
judge; and original jurisdiction in all ques-
tions arising under writs of error, certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition, and injunction di-
rected to circuit courts, or to circuit judges,
or to magistrates, or other judicial tribunals
and returnable before the supreme court.”
Attorneys; license required.” A person may
also appear “in person before any court, or
justice, and there prosecuting” “his own
cause, without the aid of legal counsel.”
Transcripts of judicial records. A transcript
of any of the records and judicial! proceed-
ings of any court of record or of any judge of
a court of record at chambers, shall be ad-
mitted in evidence upon being authenticated
by the attestation of the clerk of the court
with the seal of the court annexed, or of the
judge before whom the proceedings were
had, with the seal aforesaid.”
Procedure on appeal, supreme court; new
w
w
10) “641-24
evidence. In case of appeal to the supreme
court from a decision, judgement, order, or
decree of a circuit judge in chambers, the
supreme court shall have the power to re-
view, reverse, affirm, amend, modify, or
remand for new hearing, in chambers, such
decision, judgment, order, or decree in
whole or in part, and as to any or all of the
parties. Every such appeal shall be taken on
the record and no new evidence shall be in-
troduced in the appellate court: provided
that the appellate court may, in case evi-
dence is offered which is clearly newly dis-
covered evidence and material to the just
decision of the appeal, admit the same.”
Judgment;” “The supreme court may affirm,
reverse, or modify the order, judgment, or
sentence of the trial court. It may enter such
order, judgment, or sentence, or may re-
mand the case to the trial court for the entry
of the same or for such other or further pro-
ceedings, as in its opinion the facts and law
warrant. It may correct any error appearing
on the record.”+ “order, judgment, or sen-
tence shall be reversed or modified if the
court is of the opinion that error was com-
mitted which injuriously affected the sub-
stantial rights of the Plaintiff.”+
+AMEN.
It may correct any error appearing on the record.”+
order, judgment, or sentence shall be reversed or
modified if the court is of the opinion that error was
committed which injuriously affected the substantial
rights of the Plaintiff."'+
+AMEN.
11) “657-20
Extension by fraudulent concealment. If any
person who is liable to any of the actions
mentioned in this part, fraudulently conceals
the cause of such action from the knowledge
of the person entitled thereto, the action
may be commenced at any time within six
years after the person who is entitled to
bring the same discovers that he has such
34
ae 7
Ain Ea, La eA eed set alt ta la OE sues SE BID ae «ms pM SM silat tas
SO tat edd Rs Eta odes
Ae on ws
Mh Say ent’ ane os
i
%
;
i
:
‘
3
<
¥
:
;
12) 634-26
(6)
13) “711-21
14) “7//-22
1S) “7/1/-23
cause of action, and not afterwards.”
Joinder of causes of action. The Plaintiff ina
civil action may unite several causes of ac-
tion in the same complaint when they all
arise out of:”
“(6) Injuries to the person.”
“The causes of action so united shall all be-
long to one only of those classes, and shall
affect all the parties to the action, and they
shall be separately stated; provided, how-
ever, that causes of action belonging to dif-
ferent classes may be so joined when they
arise out of the same transaction.”
Joinder of defendants; accessories, receivers.
Any number of accessories at different times
of the whole or any part or parts of any prop-
erty which at one time have been “taken,
extorted, obtained,” “or otherwise disposed
of in such a manner as to amount toa felony,
may be charged with substantive felonies in
the same indictment and may be tried to-
gether, notwithstanding the principal felon
is not included in the same indictment, or is
not in custody, or amenable to justice.”
Joinder of charges against defendant. When
there are several charges against any person
for the same act or transaction, or for two or
more acts or transactions of the same classes
of crimes or offenses, which may be properly
joined, instead of having several indict-
ments, informations, or complaints, the
whole may be joined in separate counts in
one indictment, information, or complaint.
If two or more indictments, informations, or
complaints are found or entered in such
cases, the court or district magistrate may
order them to be consolidated.”
Misjoinder. No ind‘ctinent shall be quashed,
set aside, or dismissed, nor shall any demur-
rer thereto be sustained for misjoinder of
parties defendant or for misjoinder of of-
fenses charged; and if either defect exists
the court may sever the indictment contain-
35
ing it into separate indictments or into sep-
arate counts as shall be proper.
4. HAWAITS RULES OF CiVIL PROCEDURE OR
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
1)“Rule 12(c): Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
After the pleadings are closed but within such time as
not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment
on the pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented
to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be
treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of
as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given
reasonable opportunity to present all material made
pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”
2) “Rule 56. SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
(a) For Claimant. A party seeking to recover upon a
claim, may, at any time of the expiration of 20 days
from the commencement of the action or after ser-
vice of a motion for summary judgment by the ad-
verse party, move with or without supporting affi-
davits for a summary judgment in his favor upon all
or any part thereof.”
3)"Rule 59. NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF
JUDGMENTS.
(d) On Initiative of Court. Not later than 10 days after
entry of judgment the court of its own initiative
may order a new trial for any reason for which it
might have granted a new trial on motion of a
party.”
4)“ Rule 73. APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.”
(STATUTES APPENDED)
5. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL OR APPELLATE PRO-
CEDURE:
1) Chapter 133:28 (sec. 2101(c)) “Any other appeal or
writ of certiorari intended to bring any judginent or
decree in a civil action, suit or proceeding before the
Supreme Court for review shall be taken or applied for
within ninety days after the entry of such judgment or
decree.”
2) Chapter 133:28 (sec. 2101(e) “An application to the
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a case
before judgment has been rendered in the court of ap-
peals may be made at any time before judgment.”
36
V.
3) Chapter 133:28 (sec. 2106): Determination. “The Su-
preme Court or any other court of appellant jurisdic-
tion may “:everse any judgment, decree, or order of a
court lawfully brought before it for review, and may”
“direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, .
or order,” “as may be just under the circumstances.”
6. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
AMENDMENTS:
1) AMENDMENT I (STATUTES APPENDED) AND
DISCUSSED+
2) AMENDMENT IV (STATUTES APPENDED) AND
DISCUSSED
3) AMENDMENT VI(STATUTES APPENDED) AND
DISCUSSED
4) AMENDMENT VIII (STATUTES APPENDED) &
DISCUSSED
5) AMENDMENT XIll (STATUTES APPENDED) &
DISCUSSED
6) AMENDMENT XIV (STATUTES APPENDED) &
DISCUSSED
7) AMENDMENT XIX (STATUTES APPENDED) &
DISCUSSED
8) AMENDMENT XXVII(STATUTES APPENDED) &
DISCUSSED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. BACKGROUND
For further explanation of the background of these cases; a
hidden “Conspiracy” was latent in 1967 and was evident in
1968, when Respondents, Alfred Alphonse Yee, ex-husband
of Petitioner Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, through methods of
false accusations, defamation, deprivation of love, security
or “mental future security”, and/or through threats,
coerced attempted suicide wherefore it was not successful.
The actual Conspiracy began to show in 1971, when Peti-
tioner’s ex-husband Alfred A. Yee, Respondent as instiga-
tor and; or perpetrator obtained a housekeeper by the name
of Stephanie Kokernak, Respondent, as a Contributory
Conspirator, who initially coerced the divorce by Petitioner
Pro Se, who once didn’t believe in divorce, but was not
againsf it. Stephanie Kokernak, the maid was the tool
+in the pleadings.
37
which coerced the divorce, whereby she was employed from
July, 1971 until April, 1972; and then got an extra monihs
wages and loafed rent free at the Marco Polo Apartments:
of which the company Alfred A. Yee & Associates then
owned; for the month of May, 1972. Respondent Kokernak
Perjured in her affidavit, which said she had no idea of the
basis of alleged wrongs which Kokernak commiited. She
was not paid by the Company, and she was told her checks
were drawn out of the joint checking account which was Al-
fred A. Yee and/or Janice C. Yee, against Kokernak who
deliberately refused to take orders written and left taped
daily on the cabinet of the kitchen. Respondent Kokernak
deceptively stole the keys to the car, saying the office said
she was to do the driving. | could drive for | had temporary
insurance and was not under psychiatric care, and had a
clearance by the psychiatrist Lum for driving, whereof once
during about 5 sessions (total visits), Dr. L. ¥. Lum said,
“I know Alfred is sick, but you take the medicine.” These
were his exact words and the medicine was tranquilizer
pills, which does not get to the root of the trouble, Respon-
dent Alfred Yee was sexually mentally ill psychologically.
This is not Defamation, Libel or Slander. Dr. Lum’s attitude
was the opinion of everybody involved in the cases earlier,
which was not fair for Petitioner Pro Se Legal Rights for
Freedom against “illegal restraint” after all for the FJRST
AMENDMENT of the U.S. CONSTITUTION, also
against Respondent Stephanie Kokernak for Illegal Inva-
sion of Privacy as protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT
again, for Petitioner Pro Se as homeowner and/ or property
owner against Respondent Kokernak as a trespasser who
refused to leave although asked to quit and then was fired
so many times by Petitioner, it was unbelievable anybody
could be as crass as Kokernak, Respondent. To feel so help-
less against a bully as a maid and not have any help by ex-
husband Alfred Yee, Respondent, who sided for Kokernak
and not for his ex-wife of 18 years of marriage then, and
mother of his five (5) legitimate children, for as mother,
Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee; | cannot understand
how come Respondent Alfred Yee didn’t fire Kokernak af-
ter the divorce, if he was righteous, and/or instead how
come he gave Respondent Kokernak work in his Kahala
Apartments? Also, Respondent Kokernak did anything to
stop my writing or literary talent, of which Respondent Al-
38
fred Yee, ex-husband was guilty of previous to this incident.
Other strange incidents which Respendent Kokernak was
Guilty of was, standing in the master bathroom to watch
Petitioner sleep in the bedroom, whereby my back was to
the door, so Stephanie couldn't see Petitioner check the
bedroom clock. It was impossible to feel safe taking a nap
after that. Even the police were called one day to get rid of
Stephanie Kokernak, Respondent, who stole the car keys
and refused to give the keys back or leave. The police lis-
tened to Respondent Kokernak who rushed outside to the
driveway and conversed in low tones to the two officers
who left without listening to my side of the story. How
could Respondent Stephanie Kokernak perjure and say she
did nothing to cause the complaints against her? SHE CO-
ERCED THE DIVORCE.
Petitioner Pro Se hereby Appeals to This Supreme Court
of the United States to Direct and/or Order Summary
Judgement and, or Judgement on the Pleadings for Merits
for Restitution for Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee
against Respondent Stephanie Kokernak per Exhibit
“KKK” and “KKK-X” (APPENDIX “E(a)”)
By this divorce, Respondents, Edward Chun, et al,
(USSC#75-1143) instigated a Malicious Defense by Con-
spiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of
Judicial Process as coercion for non-assertion of Legal
Rights against coerced ignominy by coerced destitution and
incompetancy by defamation, libel, and slander for Depri-
vation of Income and Legal Rights for Petitioner against
Alfred Alphonse Yee, who threatened to “get” Petitioner,
who divorced Alfred Alphonse Yee for this and physical
violence.
Petitioner Pro Se’s Complaints and/or Allegations
against Respondent Edward Chun et al, was filed earlier
in case USSC+75-1143, whereof Petitioner Pro Se’s Peti-
tion hereby is pending for a Writ of Certiorari from This
United States Supreme Court for a Show Cause Order
whereby it can Direct and/or Order Hawaii's Supreme
Court to Show Cause why it does not believe in Justice for
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se as Petitioner Janice Ching Yee
against Respondent Edward Chun, et al, as Conspirators*
who's involvement was to conduct a Malicious Defense for
*page 3.
39
the Defamatory Injury of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, as Pe-
titioner Pro-Se, Janice Ching Yee against ex-husband Al-
fred Alphonse Yee et al, who threatened to “get” Petitioner
who divorced Alfred Yee for this and physical violence. Pe-
titioner’s ex-attorney Robert Hogan et al, Respondents
were told of this coercion for destruction, but treachery as
another instigator and or perpetrator for Conspiracy made
Respondents Hogan et al. Malfeasant. For example, Re-
spondent Robert Hogan et al wrote Edward Chun, et al,
noting Stephanie Kokernak Respondent as harassment, but
Respondent Hogan et al, traitors, refused to assert my
Legal Rights to Order removal of Respondent Stephanie
Kokernak, as Defendant (Appellee) OR, Respondent as De-
fendant Appellee Robert Hogan et al wrote a cognizant co-
herent point blank off the chest straightforward equitable
(for alimony then, which ts out) settlement, whereby both
parties could have been satisfied and or felt honorable as
humans and or as civilized beings. How come Hogan ne-
glected to assert Legal Rights for these points for Petitioner
as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se) for the Hearings on Feb-
ruary 12, 1973, whereby Final Absolute was Granted? It
was frustrating to find Respondent Robert Hogan, et al, a
talker who's record looks terrific on paper, but who never
asserted any Legal Rights for Petitioner as Plaintiff(Appel-
lant Pro se) whereby it can be seen in the non-assertion of
Legal Rights to Appeal against the “guardian ad litem” OR
for more equitable distribution of income and/or perma-
nent custody of the children to Petitioner as Plaintiff (Ap-
pellant Pro Se) whereof an unprofessiona! plea was pre-
sented to Robert Hogan, et al in March 12, 1973 in rebuttal
to a filed Financial Report by Defendants (Appellees) as
Respondents Alfred Alphonse Yee, et al, whereof Respon-
dent Hogan, et al, did nothing about it wherefore it was
presented to the Family Court again on July 20, 1973 (APP.
“E(1)"). How come Judge B.M. Vitousek refused to consi-
der it for its competance, and instead, Ordered the “false
arrest” “guardian ad litem” order, which was “Illega! Re-
straint” of person of Petition as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se)
against the traumatic “mental restraint” of this Defamatory
“false arrest”, which was “Malice Aforethought” by Judge
B.M. Vitousek, et al, Respondents and/or Conspirators*
for “murder” of person, name, and/or reputation and/or
*page 3
Saat at ey ‘te bine
|
|
character of Petitioner as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se). The
“Report” could have been ordered retyped by Respondents
Hogan, et al, for conformity, if it was the problem. (APP.
“E(1)")
Respondent Robert Hogan, et al’s Conflict was Malice,
which was Malevolent, Malfeasance for the Prejudiced
Conspiracy against a capable independent woman as Peti-
tioner Pro Se against Hogan, et al, who neglected to Appeal
for custody of the children to Petitioner as Plaintiff (Appel-
lant Pro Se) once custody was lost on July 30, 1973. The
answer to the obvious question was, “Then you won't need
the extra money”, meaning the request of the July 20. 1973,
Pleading for the Hearing in the lower Family Court. Be-
cause there was no recourse by Respondent Robert Hogan,
et al, and or no recourse from the Family Court, after many
letters, directives, and Pleas left for Respondent Hogan, et
al, which can be found tn the Records as “Exhibits” !n the
Pleadings for Petitioner as Plaintiff (Appeilant Pro Se); it
was the natural reaction of any client to look for another
lawyer. So, in October, 1973, printed copies of Pleadings
were left for ten (10) different prominent lawyers, asking
for help, whereby many said they couldn't take a case un-
less Hogan, et al, was to withdraw. Even (then) Attorney
General Elliott Richardson received a copy, whereby the
Justice Department Calvin Hawkins, mailed it back and
said it was not in their Jurisdiction (then). How come sud-
denly there was an Order on Nov. 2, 1973, for a “guardian
ad litem™? (APP. “F(1)”)
How come Respondent Hogan et al, as ex-attorney for
(Petitioner Pro Se as) Plaintiff (APPELLANT PRO SE)
Neglected to Appeal for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Ap-
pellant Pro Se) against Respondents as Defendants (Appel-
lees) Alfred A. Yee, et al, or Respondents as Defendants
(Appellees) as Defendants’ (Appellees’) attorneys Edward
Chun, et al, for Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process? Or,
how come Hogan, et al, neglected to Appeal “de Novo”
against the Defamatory Court Psychiatrist Dr. Betty
Adams’ Perjured “severe chronic mental illness” False Evi-
dence, which Judge B.M. Vitousek accepted in Malice
against HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT RULES’ CODE
OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY’S ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS EC7-26:
4|
“The law and Disciplinary Rules prohibit the use of
fraudulent, false, or perjured testimony or evidence.”
Petitioner Pro Se hereby Appeais to the Honorable Jus-
tices of the Supreme Court of the United States to Grant
Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari and/or Direct AND/ OR Or-
der Summary Judgement for Petitioner Pro Se against Re-
spondents Robert Hogan, et al, who must pay Petitioner
Pro Se Restitution per EXHIBIT “HL” AND EXHIBIT
“HLL” (APP. “E(b)”) for Traitorous Malevolent Malfea-
sance as Conspirators* in Violation of Assertion of Legal
Rights for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se).
OR, Order Summary Judgement for Petitioner Pro Se
against Respondents Judge B.M. Vitousek, et al’s Mali-
cious Complicity for Conspiracy for Judicial “Illegal Re-
straint” as “Suppression” and/or “Oppression” and or
Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process as the “false arrest”
“guardian ad litem” Restraintive Coerced Incompetency
“Order” against a good capable American woman as Peti-
tioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee for the UN/JTED STATES
CONSTITUTION and its AMENDMENTS, specifically,
AMENDMENT I, AMENDMENT It, AMENDMENT
by, AMENDMENT VIM, AMENDMENT Xiil, AMEND.-
MENT XIV, AND/OR AMENDMENT XX VI/allof which
has been discussed in ALL of the Pleadings, most of them
filed, others included as “exhibits” wherever possible.
THERE NEVER WAS A HEARING called before this
“guardian ad litem” orde:, which invoked the Jurisdiction
of This Court, as discussed previously. This was also, be-
lieve it or not, Malice for Conspiracy for Malicious “Illegal
Prosecution” by Judge B.M. Vitousek, et al, and Conspir-
ators* as Respondents as Defendants (Appellees) against
Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se) for Legal
Prosecution against the Conspirators* for evil Malice for
Delay for Harassment for mental Injury or Injury of Peti-
tioner Pro Se as Plaintiff Appellant Pro Se Janice Ching
Yee who never committed adultery, crime as Conspiracy
or deliberate sin as vain envy. The worse offender was
Judge B.M. Vitousek whose Malevolent, Malfeasance was
Conflict for Delay as Obstruction of Justice for Petitioner
Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se against the Delay for
Financial Settlement of a divorce initiated September 16,
*page 3.
42
%
1971, filed September 14, 1972, and delayed and hampered
by eleven Hearings and eleven (11) Supplemental Decisions
and five (5) other Decisions which are hereby appended as
APPENDIX “F(1 to 15)”. The last Hearing was March 25,
1976, as discussed, whereof no final Judgement can be seen
until “a week” from March 25, 1976. Even this Delay is un-
necessary; for Vitousek’s lower Family Court shouldn't wait
at all; for ALL Pleadings for Petitioner Pro Se, as Plaintiff
Appellant Pro Se, including the Pleadings of March 22,
1976 (APP. “B(10)”) were clear enough. For, according to
“LAW OF TORTS” by William L. Prosser, on page 869
(3rd Edition) 1964; damages are recoverable. (STATUTES
APPENDED) [Apr. 2, 1976—no Judgement yet]
Previous to this, back in 1973 after the Final Absolute
Divorce was filed, March |, 1973, the Financial Settlement
could have been effected and decided by the June, 1973
Financial Statement of Alfred Alphonse Yee personally,
and/or the company, Alfred A. Yee and Associates; or de-
cided by the December, 1973, Financial Statements. There
was no cause for Delay by a Vacillatory Judge, who cannot
make Equitable Settlements or proper Financial Settle-
ments and, or whose Disability should exclude Judge B. M.
Vitousek from the Judiciary bench. Therefore, will This
United States Supreme Court please Direct and/or Order it
so, against Judicial Prejudiced Malice for coerced “ignom-
iny” by Judicial “financial enslavement” as the Eleventh
Supplemental Decision, (APP. “F(15)”) in its entirety, for
Swindle besides, emphasizing page 2, bottom paragraph of
page 3, and page 4, for Merit for Petitioner's Pleadings of
March 22, 1976 “Motions” (APP. “B(10)") AND/ OR Merit
for Petitioner Pro Se’s Pleadings for Complete Settlement,
Custody of the children to Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff Ap-
pellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, and for same Petitioner
Pro Se’s Real Good Record whereby This Supreme Court
of the United States can Order the Defamatory Records
Stricken off the Real Record for Petitioner Pro Se, for
Equitable American Justice in Hawaii's Courts someday;
and for present, for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff Appellant
Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, | hereby Demand Monetary Res-
titution against Judge B.M. Vitousek, et al, per EXHIBIT
“VLN” AND EXHIBIT “VXN”, (APP. “E(c)”) for Sum-
mary Judgement or Judgement on the Pleadings for $3 mil-
lion for same Petitioner Pro Se, plus $1 million for same
43
Petitioner, as Summary Judgement for Restitution per EX-
HIBIT “KNK” and EXHIBIT “NK” (APP. “E(h)(2)”)
against Judge Norito Kawakami as another intentional
Contributory Conspirator* as Respondent; if this should
please the Justices of This Supreme Court of the United
States for Merits for Monetary Claims for Petitioner Pro Se
against Judge Kawakami's Malfeasant Conflict as Mali-
cious Prejudice for Contributory Conspiracy for Prejudiced
Persecution for Violation of Petitioner’s Legal Rights to
include AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and its
AMENDMENTS, specifically:
l.the FIRST AMENDMENT for FREEDOM by Equal
Protection by Law; or as a Property Owner as Peti-
tioner Pro Se;
2.the FOURTH AMENDMENT against Contributory
“false arrest” as the ex “guardian ad litem order” or
the recent enslaving “trustee orders” and “trust agree-
ment” of the April 4 and April 11, 1976 and the Febru-
ary 2, 1976 ((APP. “F(9)”); (APP. “F(10)"); and (APP.
“F(15)")). Hawaii's Supreme Court could have used
their initiative and/or their prerogative to Direct a
New Judgement on February 20, 1976, for case HSC
#6102 whereby it could have filed the “Motion for Tem-
porary Monetary Relief” for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro
Se, whereby it included filing “Objections et al, and
Motions, etc.”, again for case HSC #6102; or HSC
#6008 or HSC #5924, or for the “Consolidation”. This
would have prevented substantial damage by Coer-
cion of Non-assertion of Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Pro Se against all of the Respondents as De-
fendants-Appellees of these cases, who were ALL
WRONG. Therefore, “the Court’s” Orders of HSC,
Dec. 30, 1975 and/or Jan. 12, 1976, Affirming Dismis-
sal for case HSC #5949, and/or “the Court’s” refusal to
file and/or consider “Motions for Relief of Judge-
ment”. For, according to Rule 59(a & d) of HR of CP+
and/or FR of CP,*+ it could have ordered filing of
Appellant as Petitioner Pro Se’s “Motion for Relief of
Judgment” of March 19, 1976, after “the Court’s” con-
sideration ‘which should not be until filed); so Peti-
tioner as Aprciiant Pro Se (1) need not file a “Motion”
in the lower Family Court on March 22, 1976 for “Mo-
tion for Relief for Judgment”; (2) need not file an
“Amendment of Motion for Relief of Judgement” for
stipulation to forego the hearing since Judgement can
be completed by the Pleadings of the case or of these
“Motions”, wherefore, since no answer was received;
a Hearing was held although it was agreed it could be
cancelled whereby the parties; (3) need not have
wasted half an hour at a Hearing on March 25, 1975,
whereof the Judge was 15 minutes late; or Petitioner
Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se (4) need not
have “Motioned” and filed in Hawaii’s Supreme Court,
on March 23, 1976, “Motion to Amend Opening Brief”
(APP. “B(10)”) and order a check for Temporary Re-
lief for $211,850.00, for it’s all Petitioner’s money once
loaned to Respondent Alfred Alphonse Yee ex-hus-
band of Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee, who can-
not understand Hawaii’s Supreme Court who can
GRANT AND ORDER THIS SUM FOR PETI-
TIONER PRO SE AS PLAINTIFF APPELLANT
PRO SE, for its my money and/or Respondent Alfred
A. Yee, et al, can borrow from any bank, so Petitioner
Pro Se as Appellant Pro Se can use my money against
Judge B.M. Vitousek’s lower Family Court’s Judicial
“financial enslavement”, which did substantial dam-
age against Petitioner Pro Se’s Financial situation,
OR, Hawaii’s Supreme Court can use its initiative
and/or Prerogative, according to HAWAII'S RE-
VISED STATUTES, Chapter 641-4 and/or 641-24, so
it can Direct a New Judgment to conform to the evi-
dence as presented for Judgment on the Pleadings for
Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for a
Fast Determination of ALL CASES FOR PETI-
TIONER PRO SE, particularly case HSC #6102,
which was case HSC #5930, which was dismissed for
prematurity, which was a simple divorce case FC-D
#81258, which evolved into a Criminal Conspiracy
case, whereof the Big Picture can already be seen.
OR, Hawaii’s Supreme Court could Review or Re-
consider its own Orders, which were in reversible ER-
ROR and/or their Judgements can be challenged, ac-
cording to HSC RULES’ CODE OF PROFESSION-
AL RESPONSIBILITY’S ETHICAL CONSIDERA-
+HAWAIIS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
+FEDEKAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
*page 3.
44 45
TIONS’ EC7-22, for EC7-21 against Malicious Abuse
of Judicial Process for substantial damage of Petitioner
as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Legal Rights against the
“Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution” as mentioned
and or against the deletion of the names of Edward
Chun, et al, of case USSC 75-1143, and/or Alfred Al-
phonse Yee, et al, the original instigators (including
Judge B.M. Vitousek) and or perpetrators of the
“Conspiracy for Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process
for Judicial “financial enslavement” or Judicia! “in-
voluntary servitude” which was “Cruel and Unusual
Punishment”, FOR NO CRIME?
To have excluded the Originators of the Oppressive
Conspiracy, Respondent Chun et al, and/or Respon-
dent Alfred Alphonse Yee, et al, (earlier, before HSC
#6102 was docketed) does not make Sense or Reason.
Instead, Hawaii's Supreme Court could have set a Pre-
cedent for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro
Se for Complete Settlement as Equitable Settlement
whereby the sum can be computed as half of Respon-
dents as Defendants-Appellees Alfred Alphonse Yee,
ex-husband’s income set at moment of absolute di-
vorce (March 1, 1973) of $100,000.00 ($105,000. really)
per year income for Petitioner as same Appellant Pro
Se, and multiplied by another 50 years of living, if Pe-
titioner lives to a dreamable age of 93 years old (from
1973) leaving the remaining figure of $500,000.00 as a
small part of past uncollected earned income for Peti-
tioner as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who has pled and
presented about eight (8) different ways Respondents
as Defendants-Appellees Alfred Alphonse Yee, et al,
must pay Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee Com-
plete Settlement as Equitable Settlement, not to forget
custody of the children to Petitioner Pro Se Plaintiff-
Appellant Pro Se, same JCY, who can take better care
of them.
Also, Hawaii's Supreme Court can conform to all of
the other Courts of the Nation, as the last Court of Ap-
peals whereby permission, per HAWAII REVISED
STATUTES, Chapter 622-19 can be given for a court
reporter to be assigned to any case upon request, and
copies of transcripts of court proceedings presented
and/or transferred and/or sent to any court of the
46
o_o
ee re
*page 3.
nation, upon request. There should not be a feeling of
“the Court” in the back room who decides after the
“Motions” are considered for Non-assertion of perti-
nent Rights for Petitioner as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro
Se, if it can be filed or not. This was and is Conflict by
the clerks or “the Court”, whoever it is, for Coercion
of Non-assertion of Legal Rights for Petitioner as Ap-
pellant Pro Se. Hawaii’s Supreme Court should control
this. The clerks (Chun and/or Phillips) refused to file
even an Amendment of Opening Briefs to exonerate
any parties willing to sign Affidavits for case USC
#5924, HSC #5970, and HSC #6008, (APP. “H”) .'!-
though this was included in part of the Pleadings and
not strongly emphasized. This was not only Violation
of Petitioner's Legal Rights as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro
Se, it was also Violation of Legal Rights for the parties
who were not involved. “The Court” said it was be-
cause, according to “the Court Record”, the last “Mo-
tion” was Defendants-Appellees’ “Motion to Dismiss
or Affirm”, thereby corroborating the fact they (“the
Court”) still refused to file the “Objections, etc., and/
or Motions to Reconsider Order filed Feb. 13, 1976”,
which was presented to “the Court” on Feb. 17, 1976,
refused filing by the clerks; whereupon it was pre-
sented for filing by Hawaii's Supreme Court Justices
on the March 9, 1976 Hearing for six (6) members of
the Conspiracy by nine (9) Conspirators*. This is also
discussed in the Feb. 13, 1976, Feb. 17, 1976, and/or
March 9, 1976 situations for JURISDICTION for This
Supreme Court of the United States, wherefor Peti-
‘tioner Pro Se Appeals to This Court to Order the lower
Family Court of Hawaii to Strike the Defamatory Psy-
chiatrist Dr. Betty Adams, et al’s Report AND Strike
the Defamatory Social Worker Gerry Nagahisa, et al’s
Report of Petitioner Pro Se’s Real Records, AND/OR
might This Supreme Court of America set a precedent
and Order custody of the children to Petitioner Pro Se
for better care of ALL of them, and for Real Records
for Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee. Also, please
Order or Direct the lower Family Court of Hawaii to
strike its “enslaving” Supplemental Decisions, specif-
47
*page 3
ically the Sixth and Eleventh Supplemental Decisions
which Judicially Restrain and Impose; and/or makes
loans f Petitioner's money of which Respondent Al-
fred .ee, et al borrows, without paying interest to Pe-
titioner Pro Se against alimony, which is 2/3 fixed ex-
penses of Petitioner Pro Se, who pleads against this
and Judge B.M. Vitousek’s tendency to decrease ali-
mony after any income and expense statement is pre-
sented or alimony is criticized (APP. “B(11)”).
3.the FIFTH AMENDMENT against self incrimination
against paying Respondents as Defendants Appellees
Hogan, et al, Respondents as Defendants Appellees
Nickelsen, et al, and/or Respondents as Defendants
Appellees Koshiba and/or the Hawaii Bar Associa-
tion’s costs, after all Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Pro Se, never was at fault. All Respondents as
Defendants-Appellees must pay costs as part of Sum-
mary Judgement for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Pro Se, who hereby Appeals to This Supreme
Court of the United States to GRANT PETITIONER
PRO SE JANICE CHING YEE FOR WRIT OF CER-
TIORARI AND/ OR DIRECT HAWAII’S SUPREME
COURT AND/OR ORDER SUMMARY JUDGE-
MENT OR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
FOR SAME PETITIONER against Respondent as
Defendant-Appellee Robert Hogan, et al, per EXHIB-
IT “HL” and EXHIBIT “HLL”, (APP. “E(b)”); AND
OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND/OR ON THE
PLEADINGS FOR SAME PETITIONER against Re-
spondent as Defendants-Appellees Harold Nickelsen,
et al, Per EXHIBIT “NO” and EXHIBIT “NON”
(APP. “E(e)”) who didn’t have the decency to decline
the Void, Illegal “guardian ad litem order”; for Re-
spondent Nickelsen was once the Hawaii Bar Asso-
ciation’s President and/or Director. Also, Respondents
Harold Nickelsen et al, was on the list of ten (10) at-
torneys contacted for help against Respondents Robert
Hogan, et al. How come Respondent Hogan, et al, ne-
glected to Appeal against this Malfeasant Impropriety
which Respondent as Defendant (Appellee) perpe-
trated as a Conspirator* for Oppression, Fraud, Illegal
48
2 hte ae ee
ee
*page 3.
Restraint, and/or Coercion for Incompetency and Non-
assertion of Legal Rights for Petitioner Pro Se as
Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se) against the sixteen (16)
months which is lost, whereby Malfeasant Respondent
Nickelsen, et al, sat as Conspirators* as Oppressors for
humiliation of Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, who never committed any
adultery, crime, or deliberate sin to warrant this “cruel
and unusual punishment”, of sixteen (16) months De-
lay, which is against the
.the SIXTH AMENDMENT for a speedy trial, but not
so speedy it denies Justice for Petitioner for Plaintiff
(Appellant) Pro Se. (APP. “G(c)”—Transcript of the
lower Hawaii's Circuit Court Trial against Vitousek,
et al., Respondents as Defendants.
.the EIGHTH AMENDMENT against this “Cruel and
Unusual Punishment”, as discussed earlier in Jurisdic-
tion of This Court, and/or Pleadings of This Petition.
.the THIRTEENTH OR FOURTEENTH AMEND-
MENT for Due Process of Law against the non-hear-
ing for the ex “guardian ad litem” order. OR for Equal
Protection by Law against the Hawaii Bar Association
as Respondents and/or their once Ethics Commission
Chairman Respondent James Koshiba, who in March,
1974 was left very Unprofessional Complaints and or
Allegations against Respondent Robert Hogan, et al,
Conspirators* and/or Respondents Judge B.M.
Vitousek, et al, Conspirators* whereof the Complaint
against Vitousek was not answered until March 3, 1976,
whereby Disciplinary Counsel Jung Lowe talked to
Petitioner Pro Se previously about the latter part of
January, 1975, wherefore the Complaints were left for
the Ethics Committee of the Hawaii Bar Association
in March, 1974, asking for help. In June, 1974, Respon-
dent Koshiba, et al, reported Conspirator* Malfeasant
Respondent Robert Hogan, et al, “ethical”, which then
made Respondent James Koshiba “unethical” as the
Ethics Commission Chairman, et al, who was then al-
so a Contributory Conspirator* if he refused to see Re-
spondent Hogan, et al’s Malfeasant Conflict for Preju-
49
OR,
OR,
OR,
diced Persecution wherefore Koshiba, et al’s Conflict
was Prejudiced Malice for Coercion of Non-assertion
of Legal Rights for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Ap-
peilant Pro Se), against Respondent Koshiba and/or
the Hawaii Bar Association, who could have stopped
the Conspiracy then in 1974, instead of perpetrating it,
wherefore from late 1973 until present March, 1976,
more than a hundred attorneys of the Hawaii Bar Asso-
ciation were asked to help Petitioner Pro Se as Plain-
tiff-Appellant Pro Se, even for Appeal to this Supreme
Court of the United States, till | thought better of it
and used the time to Appeal Pro Se. All of them said
they couldn't help on a contingency basis, even if it
was for (recent even) 10% of Collection of Summary
Judgement or Judgement on the Pleadings. All of
them could help on a retainer basis, which was impos-
sible if alimony was 2 3 of fixed expenses of Petitioner
Pro Se’s, and Petitioner didn’t dare spend the small re-
serve saved from inheritance whereby half has been
spent already, OR all pleas to Hawaii's Courts have
been ignored for money, or refused filing by the clerks.
Besides Dave Schutter’s $5000.00 Retainer Fee for
one Appeal to Hawaii's Supreme Court was exorbitant;
John Parks’ $465.00 for sitting on the case for twe (2)
weeks and sitting in an Illegal Closed Hearing, in May,
1975, which excluded the Court Reporter Ronald Ki-
hara, or Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro
Se):
Judge K. Miho of the lower Circuit Court of Hawaii,
who postponed the May 13, 1975 Hearing, although it
was pleaded by Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff (Appel-
lant) Pro Se, a check was Necessary for Petitioner as
Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se, who was leaving in the
afternoon for Petitioner's daughter's College Gradu-
ation and/or the money was necessary for Petitioner's
trip, as decreed and/or allowed by the Sixth Supple-
mental Decisions (APP. “F(9)” & “F(10)")
Judge John West of the lower Circuit Court at the
June 6, 1975 Hearing, who refused to cite Respondents
as Defendants (Appellees) Alfred Alphonse Yee, et al,
for Contempt of Court for Non-payment of travel ex-
penses as decreed (it has not been paid back entirely)
AND. OR refused to order payment for sum noted in
50
the Financial Show Cause Order, dated May 13, 1975.
OR, David Ingman, Malfeasant attorney, who contracted
to prepare the Opening Brief for case #5930, but was
not started on preparations on Friday Aug. 22, 1975,
whereby Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro
Se FIRED David Ingman, on Friday August 22, 1975,
and asked for the return of $750.00 against Breach of
Contract, unless he could give copies of his notes so it
could be evidence for tax purposes, wherefore Respon-
dent Ingman never presented any worksheets or copies
of notes for the money ($750.00) which he never re-
turned, or paid back. Once Petitioner found out about
this, Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se,
worked through the weekend to have the Opening
Bried filed August 26, 1975, wherefore David Ingman
filed an “Appearance of Counsel” on Monday August
25, 1975, whereby earlier he said it was not necessary,
then filed “Extension of Time for Filing Opening
Brief’ WHICH WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR PETI-
TIONER PRO SE, AS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
PRO SE, who was prepared and filed the Opening
Brief for HSC #5930 on August 26, 1975, when it was
due. How come Hawaii's Supreme Court didn’t consid-
er Pleadings for Petitioner as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro
Se and use initiative and, or prerogative and, or Direct
a New Judgement against the substantial damage of
Legal Rights for Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appel-
lant Pro Se for a fast determination of case of HSC
#5930, which was FC-D #81258, which is still pending
in the lower Family Court whereof “Appeal Against
the Unequitable Terms of the Final Absolute Divorce
Decree and Child Custody” have been docketed a:
HSC #6102: wherefor it is pending. Hawaii's Supreme
Court could have, according to HAWAII'S REVISED
STATUTES, Chapter 641-4 and 641-24 (STATUTES
INVOLVED) OR, the UNITED STATES CONSTITU-
TION and all of its AMENDMENTS, wherefor all of
the CIVIL AMENDMENTS, for Jurisdiction for Ha-
waii’s Supreme Court; GRANT AND ORDER COM-
PLETE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR JUDGE-
MENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT AS EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT
FOR PETITIONER PRO SE AS PLAINTIFF AP-
5]
OR,
OR,
SO,
PELLANT PRO SE JANICE CHING YEE FOR $3
MILLION, according to Pleadings and or EXHIBIT
“AXE” AND EXHIBIT “AFT”. (APP. “B(I1)") It
still can Order this for case HSC #6102, on Appeal.
Durrell Douthit, ex-Legal Aid worker, who collected
$50.00 for reading the case and never wrote any report
as contracted and refused to answer questions before
reading, but no answers after.
Judge Norito Kawakami is not a member of the Ha-
waii Bar Association. All of the Judges of Hawaii
should be members of Hawaii's Bar Association for
Disciplinary purposes of Hawaii's Judges and or
Lawyers.
PETITIONER PRO SE HEREBY APPEALS TO
THIS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO GRANT PETITIONER PRO SE'S
WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND OR DIRECT AND
OR ORDER JUDGEMENT OF THE PLEADINGS
OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR $2 MILLION
FOR PETITIONER PRO SE JANICE CHING YEE
against Respondents’ Malevolent Malfeasant James
Koshiba and or the Hawaii Bar Association who were
in Violation of Legal Rights, including HAWAII'S SU-
PREME COURT RULES’ CODE OF PROFES-
SIONAL RESPONSIBILITY’S ETHICAL CONSID-
ERATION’S EC?7-21, EC2-30 (STATUTES AP-
PENDED) OR EC2-27 and/or EC2-28, whereby
“lawyer(s) should not decline representation because
a client of a cause is unpopular or community reac-
tion is adverse”; or “to avoid adversary alignment
against Judges, other lawyers, public officials, or
influential members of the community does not jus-
tify his rejection of tendered employment”,
as pled for Restitution for Merits for Monetary Ciaims
for Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee: per EXHIBIT
“KO”, EXHIBIT “KOK”, AND EXHIBIT “OKE”
(APP. “E(f)"); against Respondents Koshiba, et al,
who probably didn’t even check on the case in the
Family Court or he would have seen the Illegality of
the ex-“guardian ad litem order”, which then sup-
posedly was caused by the False Defamatory Perjured
Reports by Respondents Gerry Nagahisa’s “behavior
52
does not relate to the Children” of a capable woman
whose real Records of five (5) occasions as Cub Scout
Den Mother or five (5) occasions as Punahou School
Homeroom Mother or once as Sunday School Teacher
or twice as Missions Chairman writing to a Church
adopted orphan or originator of original birthday par-
ties every year for five (5) children until loss of custedy
and even then if they didn’t say “no, Dad wants to go
out” or something similar, or recent encouragement to
help the children start their side business, does not
seem a bit fair. OR, Respondents Nagahisa, et al’s Prej-
udiced Malice which made use of the smallest things,
as “Tuesday as a bad day”, which was definite Perjury,
after all, for Petitioner Pro Se does not believe in horo-
scopes, but is cognizant of them, whereby as a Scorpio,
Tuesday's a good day for Petitioner Pro Se. This is a
small sample of Respondents Nagahisa, et al’s delib-
erate Perjured False Evidence and Reports, which
was contributory Conspiracy. OR, against Respondents
Dr. Betty Adams, whose Defamatory perjured “Malice
Aforethought”™ “severe chronic mental illness” in
which Dr. Betty Adams’ Report perpetrated malice for
the Conspiracy for “murder” of reputation name and
character or person of Petitioner Pro Se against Re-
spondents Contributory Conspiracy for Coerced In-
competency for Coerced Ignominy by Coerced Destruc-
tion for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for
Petitioner Pro Se, against this court psychiatrist Re-
spondents Dr. Betty Adams, et al, who couldn't see
Respondents Alfred Alphonse Yee was a latent “mur-
derer” who was so smart, he coerced his victim to
“murder” themselves or “Coerced suicide”, where-
fore Alfred Yee as the latent or potential murderer,
was the one who was mentally ill then, and Petitioner
Pro Se should not pay twice for being injured or “mur-
dered”, supposition intended. Also the children never
got enough of their Father Alfred Yee, who once was
not available for the children’s “activities”, so their
punishment against their Father Alfred Yee, Respon-
dent, was to make him stay home, and their punish-
ment against their Mother Janice Ching Yee, Peti-
tioner Pro Se was to stop the dominant aspects of her
personality for leading children and or encouraging
53
*page 3
them to aspire. Unknowingly the children contributed
to Judge B.M. Vitousek’s Prejudiced Malice and/or
the Conspirators* Malice against a good capable Amer-
ican woman as Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff Appellant
Pro Se Janice Ching Yee. Once coerced to suicide is
bad enough, but for “the Courts” to inflict fifty-three
(53) months of “Cruei and Unusual Punishment”
against the victim as Petitioner as Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se, can be termed unfathomable. Therefore, Re-
spondents Nagahisa et al, and/or Adams, et al’s Con-
tribution to Respondents Judge B.M. Vitousek’s
Malice for loss of custody of the children to Petitioner
Pro Se, as the better parent for Petitioner's children,
or against Respondents Judge Vitousek’s Conflict
which is Malice, where Vitousek hates Petitioner and
or Petitioner’s children, not cognizant Respondents
Vitousek, et al’s Judgements were for “Destruction”
of themse!ves or their Mother Janice or their morals or
of their earlier Christian Training whereby even Job
asked, “WHY?” Wouldn't the children wonder about
Christian Justice wherefore they knew Malfeasant
Malicious Judge Vitousek was once a member of “our”
Church and served on the Altar Guild with Mother
Janice Ching Yee, Petitioner Pro Se, who never com-
mitted adultery, crime, or deliberate sin, but is so ter-
ribly restrained; and how come their Father Alfred
Alphonse Yee, Respondent would gather them to-
gether in April, 1973 and point to Mother's picture
and or yell, “Whore”? No matter how much active
silent denial by good actions and reminder of past ac-
tions, never erased this traumatic doubt from their
minds as evidenced by 173 weekends alone after pleas
for any of Hawaii's Courts where Pleadings have been
filed, any Judges sitting on the cases, the “Dean” of
the Church, a couple of the Children’s Godparents,
Grandparents, Uncles and Aunts of the children, or
Lawyers, all of whom seem to want to help Respon-
dents Alfred Alphonse Yee et al, who was at FAULT,
to “get” his ex-wife Janice Ching Yee as Petitioner
Pro Se, who hereby Appeals to This Supreme Court
of America to GRANT PETITIONER JANICE
54
CHING YEE’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR
DIRECT AND/OR ORDER PERMANENT CUS-
TODY OF THE CHILDREN TO PETITIONER PRO
SE who can teach the children to love, respect, honor,
and learn responsibility. Petitioner Pro Se also Ap-
peals to This Supreme Court of the United States to
Direct and Order JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEAD-
INGS OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR $2 MIL-
LION FOR PETITIONER PROSE, JANICE CHING
YEE FOR RESTITUTION FOR MERITS FOR
MONETARY CLAIMS FOR COMPLAINTS and
or ALLEGATIONS FOR GRIEF SUFFERED,
AGAINST NAGAHISA, et al, AND/OR ADAMS,
et al, per EXHIBIT “FO” AND EXHIBIT “FOE”
(APP. “E(d)”) AND TO STRIKE THE DEFAMA-
TORY RECORDS IN ITS ENTIRETY OUT OF PE-
TITIONER PRO SE AS PLAINTIFF APPELLANT
PRO SE’S REAL RECORDS. FOR THIS AND FOR
AMERICAN LEGAL RIGHTS, I THANK THIS SU-
PREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
After talking to many members of the Hawaii Bar
Association and others, Mr. Nelson from Bishop Trust
Company suggested Robert Franklin, among a couple
of other names. Respondent Robert Franklin acqui-
esced and contracted to sue Respondent Robert Hogan,
et al, and/or to represent Petitioner as Plaintiff (Ap-
pellant Pro Se). Respondent Robert Franklin made an
Appearance of Counsel on March 8, 1974, whereof
soon after Robert Franklin dropped the bomb whereby
he was being represented by Robert Hogan, et al, in
his, Robert Franklin's, divorce case, and “anyway” he
“didn’t say” he “would sue Hogan,” by letter on May
16, 1974 (APP. “D(7)”) This was Perjury for it was
later also supposedly said in Family Court in the Sep-
tember 6, 1974 Hearing, but it is not in the transcript.
although I remember it because it was after my plea of
September 4, 1974 (APP. “D(8)"), and I was so frus-
trated. Petitioner Pro Se hereby requests This Court to
Order copies of transcripts if needed for further evi-
dence of Merits for Petitioner Pro Se for Complain's
and/or Allegations against the lower Courts’ Deliber-
ate Delay for Obstruction of Justice for Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Pro Se as Petitioner Pro Se against the Con-
55
spirators*’ Delay as Malice for Harassment for Mali-
cious Injury of Petitioner Pro Se, who hopes and prays
tor this Supreme Court to excuse Petitioner's angry
frustrated answers in the lower Family Court if noted
in the Hearings. It’s a matter of not wanting to even
talk to others if I find they hate me. Also, Respondent
Robert Franklin’s Conflict was Fraud and Breach of
Contract, Impropriety, (representing both sides in a
case) Malevolence for Neglecting to consider wishes
of Petitioner as Plaintiff (Appellant Pro Se) and/or
Violation of Legal Rights for Petitioner as Plaintiff
(Appellant Pro Se) for Custody of the Children to same
Petitioner and Complete Settlement, for, half of Re-
spondent Alfred Alphonse Yee’s income or $4000.+ per
month of temporary alimony until Final Complete Set-
tlement of $3 million for Petitioner for Final Absolute
Divorce, as pied, whereby paid amounts can be de-
ducted; AND OR Malfeasance for Conflict of a
Fraudulent Contract, whereby Respondent Robert
Franklin said he could sue Respondent Conspirator*
Robert Hogan, et al, and was therefore hired for this
purpose or Petitioner Pro Se never would have hired
Respondent Robert Franklin, who was by then a Con-
tributory Conspirator* for Swindle by the Conspiracy
for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judi-
cial Process for Deprivation of Income and Legal
Rights for Petitioner who hereby Appeals to This
United States Supreme Court to GRANT PETI-
TILONER PRO SE JANICE CHING YEE’S WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND OR DIRECT HAWAIIPS SL-
PREME COURT TO ORDER OR ORDER SUM-
MARY JUDGEMENT OR JUDGEMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS FOR $2 MILLION FOR SAME PETI-
TIONER PRO SE FOR MERITS FOR MONETARY
CLAIMS, PER EXHIBIT “IS” AND EXHIBIT “IS-
X” (APP. “E(g)”) Against Robert Franklin's blatant
Conflict for Malevolent Negligence, Delay, Fraud,
Breach of Contract, Obstruction of Justice and/or Vio-
lation of Petitioner's Lega! Rights, as discussed for
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
56
ITS AMENDMENTS AGAINST CONSPIRACY
whereby Conspirator* Robert Franklin’s Malfeasant
Impropriety was against HAWAII'S SUPREME
COURT RULES’ CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RE-
SPONSIBILITY’S ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS’
EC7-21 (STATUTES INVOLVED) OR, the FOUR-
TEENTH AMENDMENT again against Judicial “Fi-
nancial enslavement” or Judicial “involuntary servi-
tude” as discussed, whereof Respondent Robert
Franklin and/or Respondent Robert Hogan, et al, were
Contributors to this Illegality as ex-attorneys of Peti-
tioner Pro Se, who didn’t imagine such things can hap-
pen in a regular Court of Law, whereof Petitioner here-
by prays This Court does consider all Pleadings against
Judicial “financial enslavement” and/or Judicial
“involuntary servitude”.
7.the NINETEENTH AMENDMENT FOR EQUAL
RIGHTS FOR WOMEN speaks for itself as Petitioner
Pro Se speaks for same Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Ap-
pellant Pro Se as a capable American Woman who
wants to set a good precedent for Complete Settlement
as Equitable Settlement for a good intelligent woman
as same Petitioner who didn’t commit adultery, crime,
or deliberate sin.
§. The TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT also speaks
for women, for EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.
THEREFORE, looking back on the Pleadings of all of
these cases against Respondents, “Respondent” Judge
Norito Kawakami, is “Guilty” of Contributory Conspiracy
for Prejudiced Persecution for Malicious Abuse of Judicial
Process for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for Pe-
titioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee and should therefore be
included by Joinder as an additional Respondent in case
HSC #6008; and or disbarred.
Besides, in December, 1975, two attempts were made to
join Kawakami to Respondents Koshiba, et al’s suit but it
was denied filing by the clerks of Hawaii's Supreme Court
wherefore it is presented here as a joinder to Respondents
Judge B.M. Vitousek’s case since Respondents Koshiba &
or the Hawaii Bar Association was probably unappropriate.
(APP. “E(h)(i)”) and (APP. “E(h)(2)”)
*page 3
57
Therefore, Hawaii’s lower Courts were WRONG, for Ha-
waii’s lower Courts didn’t believe in Justice for Petitioner
Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Janice Ching Yee.
VI. REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS WRIT OF CERTI-
ORARI
1. The lower Supreme Court of Hawaii was in ERROR for
Affirming the Orders, Judgements, and Decrees of the
lower Circuit Court of Hawaii for case HSC #5949, AND,
OR the lower Circuit Court was in HARMFUL, PREJU-
DICED, REVERSIBLE ERROR for their Orders, Judg-
ments, and Decrees which were for the Respondents as
Defendents (Appellees), who were all in Conspiracy as
Conspirators* and / or Contributory Conspirators*, where-
by all conspired and colluded for Prejudicial Judicial Per-
secution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for Hu-
miliation by Defamatory, Libelous, and Slanderous Co-
erced Ignominy by Coerced Incompetency and Desti-
tution by Judicial “financial enslavement” and Judicial
“involuntary servitude” by Deprivation of Income and
Legal Rights for Petitioner Pro Se.
2. Hawaii’s Supreme Court should have Directed a New
Judgment for Judgment on the Pleadings for Petitioner
Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Janice Ching Yee
and. should have voided the lower Circuit Court’s Judg-
ments for Pre,udice, not affirmed it!.
*page 3.
58
VII. CONCLUSION
The Reason for the figures of Restitution for Petitioner Pro
Se, are hereby set also because of the Respondents as Con-
spirators’ *Complicity for Conspiracy for Deprivation of
$3 million for Petitioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee as Plain-
tiff-Appellant Pro “e for Complete Financial Settlement
for Divorce as Equitable Settlement for same Petitioner
Pro Se, for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Summary
Judgment, as pled, for Restitution for Merit of Petitioner
Pro Se’s Complaints and/or Allegation for Monetary
Claims against ALL Respondents; other than Alfred Al-
phonse Yee, et al’s payment of $3 million for Petitioner
Pro Se for Complete Settlement and/or Restitution; AND/
OR so ALL Respondents would know how it feels to lose
more than $1 million once hard earned.
As an extreme Emergency Measure, can This Court
please Order a check for $211,850.00, as pled in the March
22, 1976 “Motion for Relief Of Judgment” filed in the
Family Court (APP. “B(10)") or March 23, 1976 “Amend-
ment of Opening Brief”, filed for HSC #6102 (APP.
“B(10"), which has been ignored in Hawaii's lower Courts,
both Hawaii's Supreme Court and/or Hawaii's Family
Court.
Might This United States Supreme Court set a Prece-
dent and Order “Relief of Judgment or Order”, hereby
Motioned, according tothe FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
AND APPELLATE PROCEDURE, Chapter 133:28(sec.
2106), as mentioned in the STATUTES INVOLVED,
AND/OR THESE RULES, Rule 60(b-1, b-2, b-3, b-4,
and/or b-6 for Concealment of Prejudiced Malice for Con-
spiracy for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for
Petitioner Pro Se, who has no alternative than to Plead as
Petitioner Pro Se as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who had
one course of Business Law from Northwestern University
about twenty-five (25) years ago for Law background
and/or working in the Law Section in Northwestern's
Deering Library; and/or the experience of studying or
pleading for the past year, 1975, or past 15 (fifteen) months
of Pleading, wherefor Might This Supreme Court please
accept the continuous increase of Legal Knowledge by
Petitioner Pro Se for Pleadings as a capable American
Woman Janice Ching Yee, same Petitioner who wants to
set a precedent for Complete Settlement as Equitable Set-
59
tlement for any Good Woman as same Petitioner Janice
Ching Yee who does not need the torture of small alimony
harassments which does not give FREEDOM FOR IN-
DIVIDUALS living for both sides, wherefor same Peti-
tioner Pro Se Janice Ching Yee hereby thanks This Su-
preme Court of America for its time.
sg nice sas tien Yee 4 d
Petiti§ner Pro Se
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817
Dated March 31, 1976.
WILLIAM L. FLEMING of
CADES, SCHUTTE, FLEMING & WRIGHT
Attorneys for Respondents:
ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL;
HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL: and
JAMES KOSHIBA &/OR the HAWAII
BAR ASSOCIATION.
165 S. King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
RONALD AMEMIYA 694
NELSON CHANG 726
Attorney General & Deputy for Respondents:
GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL: and/or
DR. BETTY ADAMS, ET A!:
RONALD AMEMIYA 694
CEDRIC CHOI 1375
Attorney General & Deputy for Respondent:
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK, ET AL;
HAWAII STATE CAPITOL
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
MAX GARCIA
Attorney for Respondent:
ROBERT FRANKLIN,
Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center,
190 S. King Street,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
STANLEY KANETAKE
Attorney for Respondent:
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK
228 Kuulei Road
Kailua, Hawaii, 96734
EDWARD Y.C. CHUN of
CHUN, KERR, & DODD
Attorneys for Respondent:
ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, ET AL,
Suite 1408. AmFac Building
700 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
61
NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE, PETITIONER PRO SE
VS.
ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE and or
ALFRED A. YEE & ASSOCIATES. HSC+, NO. 6102,
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, HSC+, NO. 5943
ROBERT HOGAN and/or HOGAN, ROGHER, GRIMES
& BYBEE, HSC+, NO. 5971
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK, and) or the FAMILY COURT of
the FIRST CIRCUIT of the STATE OF HAWAII, HSC-,
NO. 6008
DR. BETTY ADAMS and) or HAWAII'S DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND OR GERRY NAGAHISA and/or the
ADULT SERVICE BRANCH of the STATE OF HAWAII'S
FAMILY, FIRST CIRCUIT, HSC+, NO. 5924,
HAROLD NICKELSEN and/or CONROY, HAMILTON,
GIBSON, NICKELSEN, & RUSH, HSC+, NO. 5969,
JAMES KOSHIBA and, or the HAWAII BAR
ASSOCIATION, HSC+, NO. 5970,
ROBERT FRANKLIN, HSC+, NO. 5949. RESPONDENTS.
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER PRO SE
lam Mrs. Janice Ching Yee of 3169 Alika Avenue, Honolulu,
Hawaii, (96817), and being duly sworn and under oath swear
and affirm that all of my “unprofessional” LEGAL PLEAD-
INGS, including ALL PLEADINGS, are pled in good faith
and/or with good intentions for I hereby will uphold the CON-
STITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
"2 ;
nice Ching Yee ; ,
Petitioner Pro Se
Subscribed and sworn this
31st day of March, 1976.
62
s Anthony C. Ornellas
Notary Public, First Judicial
Circuit, State of Hawaii
My commission expires: 2 13 80
63
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify three (3) copies of this Joint Petition for Writ
of Certiorari, will be served for this day of March 31, 1976, on:
WILLIAM L. FLEMING of
CADES, SCHUTTE,
FLEMING & WRIGHT
Attorneys for Respondents:
ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL;
HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET
AL; and
JAMES KOSHIBA &/ or the
HAWAII BAR ASSOC.
165 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
RONALD AMEMIYA 594
NELSON CHANG 726
Attorney General and De uty
for Respondents:
GERRY NAGAHISA. ET AL;
and/or
DR. BETTY ADAMS,
ET AL;
RONALD AMEMIYA 694
CEDRIC CHOI 1375
Attorney General and Deputy
for Respondents
JUDGE B.M. VITOUSEK,
ET AL;
HAWAII STATE CAPITOL
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
MAX GARCIA
Attorney for Respondent:
ROBERT FRANKLIN
Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center
190 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
64
Wie: Janets %
MRS.YANICE CHING
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817
STANLEY KANETAKE
Attorney for Respondent:
STEPHANIE KOKERNAK
228 Kuulei Road
Kailua, Hawaii, 96734
EDWARD Y.C. CHUN of
CHUN, KERR, & DODD
Attorney for Respondents:
ALFRED ALPHONSE
YEE, ET AL;
Suite 1408, AmFac Building
700 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
65
APPENDICES
STATUTES APPENDED
page
|. (EXCEPTION) LAW OF TORTS by William
“There may be recovery of other damages,
designated as “special”, if there is specific
pleading and proof. The Plaintiff may
recover compensation for any arrest or
imprisonment, 88 including damages for
discomfort or injury to his health, 89 or loss
of time 90 and deprivation of the society of
his family. 9/ He may recover any reason-
able expenses to which he has been put in
defending the prosecution and establishing
his innocence 92 including attorney's fees
in the criminal proceeding, 93 although such
fees in the action for Malicious Prosecution
itself are normally not recoverable. 94 In
addition, he may recover for any specific
financial loss such as the loss of present 95
or prospective 96 employment, which can be
proved with reasonable certainty to have
been caused 97 by the prosecution, provided
»that it is regarded as a foreseeable. or normal,
consequence of the criminal proceeding.” 98
“Because of the intentional and outrageous
nature oi the tort”—or “false arrest”
“guardian ad litem” or “trustee” order(s)-
“malicious” ILLEGAL FALSE “prosecution
is peculiarly adapted to the award of punitive
damages, and it is agreed generally that the
jury may award them when they find personal
ill will or oppressive conduct in the
“ILLEGAL FALSE “prosecution”. /
“Rich vs. Rogers, 1925, 250 Mass. 587, 146 N.E. 246, 37 A.L.R. 656 Wilson
vs. Bowers 1887, 64 Mich. 133.31 NW.
*’ Stoecker v. Nathamson, 1904, 5 Neh. U of. 435 98 NW. 1061
“ Hefer v. Hamburg Quarry Co. 1921, 208 Mo. App. 355, 233 S.W. 275
*! Walling v. Fields 1923, 209 Ala 389, 96 So. 471
* Seidler v. Burns 1912 86 Conn. 249, 8S A. 369
“3 Benderach v. Grujicich 1925, 30, N.M. 331, 233
“4 Benderach v. Grujicich
2. HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES:
Chapter 728(1), (vol. #7), 1968, page 797:
“Conspiracy defined. If two or more persons conspire:
1) To commit any offense:
2) To instigate or incite another or others to commit any
offense:
3) To bring or maintain any suit proceeding knowing the
same to be groundless; or
4) To cause another or others to be arrested, charged,
or indicted for an offense, knowing them to be inno-
cent thereof:
each shall be guilty of conspiracy. (PC 1869, c 28, +1: am
L 1892, c 102, +1; RL 1925, +4331; RL 1935, +5720: RL
1945, +11120; am L SP 1949, ¢ 10, +1; RL 1955, +268-1)
3, HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 73 .34
Rule 73. APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.
(a) How and When Taken. An appeal permitted by law from
a circuit court to the supreme court shall be taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the circuit court within 30 days from the
entry of the judgment appealed from, except that: (1) upon a
showing of excusable neglect the circuit court in any action
may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal not exceed-
ing 30 days from the expiration of the original time )erein pre-
scribed; (2) if a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any
other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the
date on which the first notice of appeal was filed, or within the
time otherwise herein prescribed, whichever period last expires.
The running of the time for appeal is terminated as to all par-
ties by a timely nrotion made by any party pursuant to any of
the rules hereinafter enumerated, and the full time for appeal
fixed in this subdivision conmimences to run and is to be com-
puted from the entry of any of the following orders made upon
a timely motion under such rules: granting ar denying a motion
for judgment under Rule 50(0); or granting or denying a motion
under Rule 52(b) to amend or make additional findings of fact,
“H.S. Leyman Co. v. Short, 1926, 214 Ky. 272, 283 S.W. 96.
% Stoecker v. Nathanson
Cf. Baer v. Chambers 1912, 67 Wash 357, 121 P. 843
“Cf. Hanson v. Rhodes- Burford Furn. Co. 1923, 227 Ul App. 471
‘Western Union Tel. Co. v. Thomason, 4 Cir. 1918, 215 F. 833
whether or not an alteration of the judgment would be required
if the motion is granted; or granting or denying a motion under
Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; or denying a motion
for new trial under Rule 59. If the order or judgment appealed
from is appealable only upon the allowance of the appeal by
the court entering .{, any application for such allowance must
be made within 10 days after entry thereof and the appeal taken
within 10 days after the allowance is granted.
Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely
filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the
appeal, but is ground only for such action as the supreme court
deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appe2i.
If an appeal has not been docketed, the narties, with the appro-
val of the circuit court, may dismiss the appeal by stipulation,
filed in that court, or that court may dismiss the appeal upon
motion and notice by the appellant.
(b) Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall specify the
parties taking the appeal and shail designate the judgment or
part thereof appealed from. Notification of the filing of the no-
tice of appeal shall be given by the appellant by serving the
same in the manner provided in Rule 5.”
(g) Docketing the Appeal; Filing of the Record on Appeal.
The appellant shall cause the record on appeal as provided for
in Rules 75 and 76 to be filed with the supreme court and the
appeal to be docketed there within 40 days from the date of fil-
ing the notice of appeal. The record will be filed and the apneal
docketed upon receipt by the clerk of the supreme court 1-
in the 40 days herein provided or within such shorter or longer
period as the court may prescribe, of the record on appeal and,
unless the appellant is authorized to proceed without prepay-
ment of fees, of the filing fee fixed by law. When more than one
appeal is taken from the same judgment, the circuit court may
prescribe the time for filing and docketing, which in no event
shall be less than 40 days from the date of filing the first notice
of appeal. In all cases the circuit court may extend the time for
filing the record and docketing the appeal upon motion of an
appellant made within the period for filing and docketing as
originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or
upon its own motion by order entered within such period; but
the circuit court shall not extend the time to a day more than
90 days from the date of filing the first notice of appeal. The
motion of an appellant for an extension shall show that his in-
ability to effect timely filing and docketing is due to causes be-
yond his control or to circumstances which may be deemed
excusable neglect. The circuit court or the supreme court may
require the record to be filed and the appeal to be docketed at
any time within the time otherwise provided or fixed.”
4. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION++
A. AMENDMENTS:
1) FIRST AMENDMENT: 7,34,35,40
“Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
2) FOURTH AMENDMENT: 7.34.40
“The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.
3) SIXTH AMENDMENT: 7,34,40.48
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
(what about aggrieved?) shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation (against Plaintiff
against “false arrest” restraintive
“guardian ad litem”); to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witness
++WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA(vol.4#'9) 1971, page 141 to 145.
++ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA(vol.#3) 1967, page 618 to 619.
++ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA(vol.46) 1967, page 401 to 407.
in his favor, and to have the assistance of
counsel for his defense (what about
prosecution as aggrieved party?)
4) EIGHTH AMENDMENT:
“Excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.”
5) THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT:
“Section |. Neither slavery nor involun-
tary servitude, except as a punish-
ment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by legislation.”
6) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:
“Section 1. All persons born (or
naturalized) in the United States, and
subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall
any Siate deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.”
“Section 2, 3, 4, also, not specified and
appended.
Section 5. “The Congress shall have
power to enforce by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this
article.”
7) NINETEENTH AMENDMENT:
“Section |. The right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be -
denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account
of sex.”
7,34,40,48
7,34,40,48
' 7,34,40,
48,57
7,34,40,58
“Section 2. Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.”
'
3
:
;
f
:
;.
}
NO. 5949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE, Civil No. 44578
MOTION TO DISMISS
AND ALTERNATIVE
MOTION TO AFFIRM
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. FRANKLIN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
)
ORDER
LYNOOS AWANdNS WAATD
unYy.) “Hf wee, 's
L0 & Wd 0¢ OAC SZL6l
APPENDIX “A(1)”
aaa
NO. 5949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE, Civil No. 44578
MOTION TO DISMISS
AND ALTERNATIVE
MOTION TO AFFIRM
Plaintiff-Appellant,
ROBERT A. FRANKLIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Se ee ee ee eee ee
ORDER
This court is of the opinion that a review of the pleadings and
the proceedings in the trial court on:
(1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss and alternative motion to
strike;
(2) Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint, motion to strike
Detendant’s motion to dismiss, and motion for summary
judgment for Plaintiff; and
(3) Plaintiff's motion to strike order to dismiss motion to
amend complaint without leave to amend and motion to
amend complaint for summary judgment,
shows that the trial court, in essence, considered the above mo-
tions as if the complaint had been amended in fact by the
Plaintiff;
That thereafter, after hearing arguments and a review of the
additional pleadings, the trial court affirmed its order granting
Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Thus, on the basis of the record herein, appellee’s motion to
dismiss appeal is granted and the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
DATED: Honoluiu, Hawaii, December 30, 1975.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ William S. Richardson
Chief Justice
NO. 5949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
'
v. PETITION FOR
REHEARING
ROBERT FRANKLIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
ze
EOS
ais
ORDER siz =
mets fm
Z=c (CS
a8
25s
-
APPENDIX “A(1)”
NO. 5949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE CHING YEE, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) PETITION FOR
) REHEARING
ROBERT FRANKLIN, )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
sine
ORDER
[he petition for rehearing filed on January 5, 1976, is denied
without argument.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 12, 1976.
FOR THE COURT:
s William S. Richardson
Chiet Justice
ry
&
'
a
IST CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF HAWAII
FILED
MAX NAKATA GARCIA-738
Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center
190 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: 524-3722
1975 MAY 5 AM 10 42
s RS. YAMADA
CLERK
Attorney for Defendant
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
JANICE CHING YEE, Civil No. 44578
)
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING
) MOTION TO DISMISS
VS. ) WITHOUT LEAVE TO
) AMEND AND DENYING
) MOTION TO AMEND
) COMPLAINT
)
)
ROBERT A. FRANKLIN,
Defendant
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND AND
DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 17, 1975. Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Strike on
April 7, 1975. On April 17, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
Complaint. A hearing was held on April 17, 1975, and the Court
reviewed the pleadings and heard the arguments. Good cause
appearing therefore,
ITISHFREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant is hereby
granted, without leave to amend the Complaint.
IT ISHEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGEDAND
DECREED that the Motion to Amend Complaint is hereby
denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2, 1975.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ‘5s. Norito Kawakami
s/ JANICE CHING YEE, = Judge of the above-entitled
Plaintiff Court
SEAL
I do hereby certify that this is
a full, true, and correct copy
of the original on file in this
office.
s R.S. Yamada
Clerk, Circuit Court,
First Circuit
State of Hawaii
a
APPENDIX “A(2)”
MAX NAKATA GARCIA-738 IST CIRCUIT COURT
Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center emer ita
190 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 1975 JUL 18 AM 8 29
Telephone: 524-3722 Wey
CLERK
Attorney for Defendant
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
JANICE CHING YEE, Civil No. 44578
)
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING
) MOTION TO STRIKE
VS. ) ORDER TO DISMISS
) MOTION TO AMEND
) COMPLAINT WITHOUT
) LEAVE TO AMEND AND
) MOTION TO AMEND
) COMPLAINT FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER TO
DISMISS MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND AND MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On May 6, 1975, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Order To
Dismiss Motion To Amend Complaint Without Leave To
Amend and Motion To Amend Complaint For Summary Judg-
ment. On June 4, 1975, a hearing was held on the above Motion,
and arguments were heard, and good cause appearing therefor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion To Strike Order
To Dismiss Motion To Amend Complaint Without Leave To
Amend and Motion To Amend Complaint For Summary Judg-
ment is hereby denied. This order shall take effect as of June 4.
1975, nunc pro tunc.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 16, 1975.
ROBERT A. FRANKLIN,
Defendant.
s Norito Kawakami
Judge of the above-entitled
Court
APPENDIX “AQQ)’
October 4, 1975
Office of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii
Dear Sirs:
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby requests a copy of the tran-
script of the hearing dated September 2, 1975 at 10:30 a.m. for
case No. 5903, according to Hawaii's Revised Statutes, Chapter
622-19.
May I also have a copy of the future transcript for the hearing
dated October 21, 1975, at 9:30 a.m. for case No. 5930, accord-
ing to Hawaii's Revised Statutes, Chapter 622-19, or can | re-
quest for a court reporter of my own?
Thank you for your kind attention.
s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Plaintiff-Appellent Pro Se
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817
APPENDIX “A(3)(a)”
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII
ALIIOLANI HALE
HONOLULU
CHIEF JUSTICE
WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
BERT T. KOBAYASHI
THOMAS S. OGATA
BENJAMIN MENOR
H. BAIRD KIDWELL
October 20, 1975
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
Dear Mrs. Yee:
Re: S. C. Cases Nos. 5903 and 5930 —
Your request to this court as stated in your letter dated Octo-
ber 4, 1975, for a copy of the transcript of the hearing dated
September 2, 1975, a copy of future transcript for case No.
5930, and your request for a court reporter are denied.
Very truly yours,
s' William S. Richardson
Chief Justice
APPENDIX “A(3)a)”
December 29, 1975
HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
YOUR HONORS
Can you please excuse Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for chal-
lenging the word of the good Justices against releasing copies
of the transcripts for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se per request of
October 4, 1975, for according to HAWAII'S REVISED STAT-
UTES, Chapter 622-19: “Transcript of Judicial Records”:
“A transcript of any of the records and judicial proceedings of
any court of record or of any judge of a court of record at
chambers, shall be admitted in evidence upon being authen-
ticated by the attestation of the clerk of the court with the
seal of the court annexed, or of the judge before whom the
preceedings were had, with the seal aforesaid.”
So, can | please have copies of transcripts for the hearings of
September 2, 1975 (case No. 5903); October 21, 1975 (case No.
5930), where counsel Ed Chun perjured for delay as this case
does not have an interlocutory decree or judgement; and No-
vember 5, 1975 (case No. 5949); and permission to order any
future transcripts.
Thank you for reversal of your denial of October 20, 1975,
according to HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT RULES’ CODE
OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES’ ETHICAL
CONSIDERATION 7-22.
/s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se
Honolulu, Hawaii
APPENDIX “A(3a)”
Jan. 19, 1976
Office of Hawaii's Supreme Court
HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT
Honolulu, Hawaii
Dear Sirs:
Petitioner hereby requests for a “transcript of the record in
the case” for No. 5903; Yee vs. Chun; “including the proceed-
ings in the court whose judgment or decree is sought to be re-
viewed,” to “be certified by the clerk of the Supreme “Court”
of Hawaii, according to Rule 21 of the United States Supreme
Court Rules, for review by Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
May this please include the entire record in Hawaii's Su-
preme Court, and/or lower Circuit Court; for S.C. No. 5903
and or Civil No. 44245, Yee vs. Chun.
Thank you for your fast consideration to this matter.
/s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se
Petitioner
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii
APPENDIX “A(3)a)”
Jan. 26, 1976
HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT
HONOLULU, HAWAII
Your Honors,
Can | please have a copy of the Transcript of the Proceedings
of case No. 5930, as evidence of Defendants-Appellees’ coun-
sel Edward Y.C. Chun’s Perjury, which is evidence for Plain-
tiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
Supreme Court of the United States of America, for Yee vs.
Chun, S.C. No. 5903.
Can the Justices please order a copy from the clerks, accord-
ing to HAWAIVS REVISED STATUTES, Chapter 622-19, to
be authenticated, signed, and sealed by the Justices or by the
clerks.
Thank you for your fast consideration to this matter.
s Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817
APPENDIX “A(3,ay”
EDWARD K. SUZUKI SAMUEL K. MAKEKAU
CHIEF CLERK DEPUTY CLERK
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII
P. O. Box 2560
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96804
January 27, 1976
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
Re: Case No. 5903—Yee v. Chun and
Case No. 5930—Yee v. Yee
Dear Mrs. Yee:
The Court has directed me to inform you that there is no such
transcript of proceedings as referred to in your letter of January
26, 1976. Your request, therefore, will be denied.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Edward K. Suzuki
Edward K. Suzuki
Chief Clerk
APPENDIX “A(3)a)”
March 19, 1976
HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT AND, OR OFFICE
HONOLULU, HAWAII
DEAR SIRS:
According to Hawaii Revised Statuies, Chapter 622-19, can
| please have a copy of the transcript for the Hearing of March
9, 1976 for cases:
S.C. NO. 5924
S.C. NO. 5943
S.C. NO. 5969
S.C. NO. 5970
S.C. NO. 5971 and
S.C. NO. 6008
including matter pertaining to cases S.C. NO. 5903, 5930, 5949,
and 6102, completely as mentioned in the Hearing, without
any deletions in the testimony?
Thank you for this consideration.
s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
No. 463581
Sent To: S.C. of Hawaii
Date: March 19, 1976
APPENDIX “A(3) (b)”
EDWARD K. SUZUKI SAMUEL K. MAKEKAU
CHIEF CLERK DEPUTY CLERK
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII
P.O. BOX 2560
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96804
April 1, 1976
Mrs. Janice Ching Yee
3169 Alika Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii 96817
Re: Yee vs. Nagahisa and
others
Nos. 5924, 5943, 5969,
5970, 5971, 6008, 5903, 5930,
5949 & 6102
Dear Mrs. Yee:
Your request of March 19, 1976 for transcript of hearings for
the above-entitled matters has been referred to the court for
consideration.
The court has directed me to inform you that your request has
been denied.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Samuel K. Makekau
Samuel K. Makekau
Deputy Clerk
SK M:gfk
APPENDIX “A(3)(b)”
NO. 5930
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE YEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Vs.
ALFRED A. YEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
wm me ee ee ee ee eee ee” Se” ee ee ee ee”
DECISION AND ORDER
“Bay”
FC-D NO. 81258
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION AND ORDER
PROVIDING FOR DIVI-
SION AND MANAGE-
MENT OF PROPERTY:
FOR SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE OF
PLAINTIFF FOR
CUSTODY, SUPPORT,
MAINTENANCE OF
PLAINiIFF FOR CUS-
FODY,. SUPPORT.
MAINTENANCE AND
EDUCATION OF
CHILDREN AND DE-
TERMINING OTHER
MATTERS AI ISSUE,
FILED APRIL 4, 1975;
EIC.
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT,
FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE BETTY M.
VITOUSEK, JUDGE
aaa
[MOD IWIN IS WAIWD
sduyd “\ ur
SL6l Wd 809 € AON
NO. 5930
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
JANICE YEE, FC-C NO. 81258
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION AND ORDER
PROVIDING FOR DIVI-
SION AND MANAGE-
MENT OF PROPERTY,
FOR SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE OF
PLAINTIFF FOR
CUSTODY, SUPPORT,
MAINTENANCE AND
EDUCATION OF
CHILDREN AND DE-
TERMINING OTHER
MATTERS AT ISSUE,
FILED APRIL 4, 1975;
ETC.
Piaintiff-Appellant,
VS.
ALFRED A. YEE,
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
FAMILY COURT
Defendant-Appellee.
mw mm ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee Smee” mee” ee” ee See”
HONORABLE BETTY M.
VITOUSEK, JUDGE
DECISION AND ORDER
Appellant's Motion for Special Summary Judgment and Cus-
tody; or inthe Alternative, Motion for Custody and Reconsider-
ation of Temporary Alimony Payments and Child Support, and
Re-Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff-Appellant and
Custody: Motion to Strike Defendants-Appellees’ Motion of
September 29. 1975, and appellees’ Motion tor Order Denying
Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Reconsidera-
tion of Temporary Alimony and Child Support Payments; Mo-
tion to Dismiss, came on for hearing on Tuesday, October 21,
1975. The Court, having heard argument of appellant and apel-
lees’ counsel and considered the written submittals in support
of and opposition to the motions, and having read appellant's
opening brief and examined the record on file, finds that good
cause exists to deny appellant’s motions and to grant appel-
lees’ motions.
It is, accordingly, hereby ordered that appellant’s Motion for
Special Summary Judgment and Custody; or in the Alternative,
Motion for Custody and Reconsideration of Temporary Ali-
mony Payments and Child Support and Re-Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment for Plaintiff-Appeliant and Custody; Motion
to Strike Defendants-Appellees’ Motion of September 29, 1975,
are denied, and appellees’ Motion for Order Denying Appel-
lant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Reconsideration of
Temporary Alimony and Child Support Payments is granted.
Appellees’ additional Motion to Dismiss appellant’s appeal is
granted on the ground that appellant's appeal is premature.
The Court directs appellant's attention to the Eighth Supple-
mental Decision and Order rendered by Judge Betty Vitousek
(filed April 28, 1975), wherein the Judge states, to-wit:
“That each party shall have thirty days from the date of
approval by this court of the trust instrument to be sub-
mitted by Defendant pursuant to paragraph 1(A) (4) (a) of
the Sixth Supplemental Decision and Order filed herein
preme Court of Hawaii.”
The Court further directs appellant's attention, and requires
of appellant to follow Rule 3 of this Court in appellant’s prep-
aration of her new opening brief, if any.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 3, 1975.
William S. Richardson
Bert T. Kobayashi
Thomas S. Ogata
Benjamin Menor
' Robert Won Bal Chang
yrunueve
JANICE YEE.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VS.
ALFRED A. YEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
NO. 5930
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
OCTOBER TERM 1975
mee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee” ee ee ee”
ORDER
FC-D NO. 81258
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION AND ORDER
PROVIDING FOR DIVI-
SION AND MANAGE-
MENT OF PROPERTY;
FOR SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE OF
PLAINTIFF FOR
CUSTODY, SUPPORT,
MAINTENANCE OF
PLAINTIFF FOR CUS-
TODY, SUPPORT,
MAINTENANCE AND
EDUCATION OF
CHILDREN AND DE-
TERMINING OTHER
MATTERS AT ISSUE,
FILED APRIL 4, 1975;
ETC.
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT,
FAMILY COURT
HONORABLE BETTY M.
VITOUSEK, JUDGE
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.