# Petition — Yee v. Yee > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1944%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 426 U.S. 911 ## 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- 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 Tha soo ee Re ne SE rere ene December of $14,417.04 was reported for Alfred Al- phonse Yee. This was Deceptive for Deprivation of $1,250.00 extra moneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, for as the Court will note the following projection where- by the income has been spread in more proper propor- tions or more advantageous proportions for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se for temporary maximum alimony until Complete Settlement for Plaintiff-Appe!lant Pro Se, for This Court to order a check for $1,250 meanwhile, for immediate relief of finances. PROJECTION EXHIBITED Relief AA Vees Due monthly salary Adjusted Gross Paid Plammtiff- Date for 1975 for max. alimony Alimony Appellant Jan. 1975 $ 2,250.00 $1,400. Feb. 1975 3,150.00 | 400. Mar. 1975 3,150.00 Apr. 1975 3,150.00 May 1975 3,150.00 600. June 1975 3,150.00 $+3,130.04 600. $ 50.00 ee ee . July 1975 1 890.00 250. Aug. 1975 1,890.00 250. Sept. 1975 1,890.00 250. Oct. 1975 3,195.00 +3,806.00 250. 600.00 Nov. 1975 4.320.00 +2,.781.00 250. 600.00 Dec. 1975 14.417.04 CREDITS 1.850. +2,300.00 16,717.04 ($9,717.04) Therefore. the Adjusted Gross Income per month for Alfred as projected here, is effected to add up to $7,001.00 for maxi- mum alimony for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se of $1,850.00 which is an unfair sum for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for equitable set- tlement or Complete Settlement. This is all according to the “Sixth Supplemental! Decision, etc..” page 8. for gross income of over $7,000.00 per month. This unequitable method of distribution of income for alimony can be appealed once Judge Vitousek from the lower court re- verses her decision for a “trustee” or “trust instrument” OR signs the “trust instrument,” which was supposedly due last Ju- ly, 1975. Can Hawaii's Supreme Court as the Senidr Court please GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL FOR COMPLETE SETTLEMENT AND OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE AGAINST ANY DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES OF THE CONSPIRACY for Deception for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who hereby asks Hawaii Supreme Court to hereby deduct $20,000.00 as inad- vertant neglect and/or excusable error for Alfred A. Yee’s Gross Income for 1974, and therefore can the Court please ex- cuse this and deduct $10,000.00, or half of $20,000.00, as un- paid income for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se: and can it be amended on all of the Exhibits for Damages as an entry for Compensatory or Exemplary Damages. Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby hopes the Justices will GRANT THIS AMENDMENT and GRANT PLAINTIFF-AP- PELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL FOR A PRECEDENT FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR PLAINTIFF-AP- PELLANT PRO SE FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, so we can stop the delay as Obstruction of Justice for Plaintiff-Appel- lant. Will the Court please include this letter as pertinent to be filed for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Record and to help eliminate costs, can the Justices please order a new file or folder for the “Consolidation of Appeals Against Conspiracy,” etc., to elimi- nate making a total of 55 copies, for then this folder can be pulled out separate with any case of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s. With due respect for Justice, s| Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Dated January 9, 1976 Honolulu, Hawaii EXHIBIT “AUGH” of Feb. 17, 1976 “Objection” “and/or Mo- tion to Reconsider” “Order of Feb. 13, 1976" (APP. “B(8)(b)” APPENDIX “B(8)(a)” NO. 6102 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, ) FC-D No. 81258 Plaintiff-Appellant Pro-Se,) ) APPEAL AGAINST THE ) UNEQUITABLE TERMS VS. ) OF THEFINALABSOLUTE ) DIVORCE DECREE ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, ) AND CHILD CUSTODY and/or ) ALFRED A. YEE & ) ASSOCIATES, ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY COURT Honorable Betty Vitousek Judge OBJECTION TO ORDER OF FEBRUARY 13. 1976 AND, OR MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TOGRANT AN INJUNCTION, EITC. Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby Objects and Moves This Court to Reconsider Appellant's Motion to GRANT AN IN- JUNCTION, excusing Inadvertance Excusable Mistake of any Defects on the face of the previous Motion, according to Rule 60(b-ljof HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, where- by also Chapter 490: 1-207 and or Chapter 490:3-606 of HA- WAII'S REVISED STATUTES can be deleted as an inadver- tant excusable mistake, if it does not apply for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se without prejudice. Will the Court please remember the intent of Piaintiff-Appel- lant Pro Se for fast determination of This Case No. 6102, includ- ing the Records for case S.C. No. 5930 and FC-D No. 81258, which has been delayed too long: and thereby, can This Court GRANT PLAINTIFF APPELLANT PROSE’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN AND COM- PLETE SETTLEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT PRO SE AND ORDER IT SO FAR A CASH SETTLEMENT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE SO BOTH SIDES WILL STOP HURT- ING EACH OTHER. APPENDIX “B(8\(b)” Ihe Jurisdiction of This Court to GRANT THIS APPEAL AND ORDER IT SO, resides on HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 73, Rule 62(g), and Rule 65(b); HAWAITS REVISED STATUTES, Chapter 602-5, Chapter 605-2, Chapter 641-4 and/or 641-24; HAWAITS SUPREME COURT RULES, Rule Ifa) (1), Rule 16.2(a), and/or HA- WAITS SUPREME COURT RULES’ CODE OF PROFES- SIONAL RESPONSIBILITY’S ETHICAL CONSIDERA- TION, EC7-22 and EC7-21. AND: OR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. NO. 6102 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, MOTION TO GRANT AN s Mrs. Janice Ching Yee v. ) ) ) ) JUNCTION 7 . . . ) IN Mrs. Janice Ching Yee ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE. ) Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se and/or ) 3169 Alika Avenue Peetine heel — Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817 ia - ) Dated February 16, 1976 Defendants-Appellees. ORDER qaua PHIOD AWAAd IS WAAL uny.) Hf waweay) s Let Wd tl @44 926l APPENDIX “B(8)\(b)” APPENDIX “BOF NO. 6102 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintitf-Appellant, v. MOTION TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, and or ALFRED A. YEE & ASSOCIATES. Defendants-Appellees. Nom mre ee ee ee ee ee ee” ORDER Appellant’s Motion to Grant an Injunction During Pendency of an Appeal, filed on January 26, 1976, being legally defective on its face, is denied without argument. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 13, 1976. FOR THE COURT: s/ William S. Richardson Chief Justice - + Ae hee ate 0 tet Sita Poe ee one ure NO. 6102 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, ) FC-D No. 81258 Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se ) ) APPEAL AGAINST THE ) UNEQUITABLE TERMS OF VS. ) THE FINAL ABSOLUTE ) DIVORCE DECREE ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, ) AND CHILD CUSTODY and/or ) ALFREDA. YEE& ASSOCIATES,, FIRST CIRCUIT COURT Defendants-Appellees. ) FAMILY COURT ) ) Honorable Betty Vitousek ) Judge MEMORANDUMS, ARGUMENTS, AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION AND OR MOTION Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby Objects and Moves the Court to RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO GRANT AN iN- JUNCTION, filed January 26, 1976, excusing the inadvertant mistake of any defects on the face of the previous Motion, ac- cording to Rule 60(b-1) of HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PRO- CEDURE, whereby also Chapter 490: 1-207 and/or Chapter 490:3-606 of HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES can be deleted as an inadvertant excusable mistake if it does not apply for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who was only looking for a rule to Reserve Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Rights for payment of moneys to Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se without prejudice. Excusing former Motion To Grant An Injunction for “being legally defective on its face”, can the Court accept the new face of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Motion, excusing seeming frivol- ity, if this is the cause of denial of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Motion: for this Motion for an Injunction and all of the previous Memorandums of Law and Arguments and Exhibits are very pertinent for a fast determination of This Case for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se against the delay of thirty-six (36) months since the “Final Absolute Divorce for a case which should have de- cided financially already, for Complete Settlement for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se tor $3 million and for permanent Custody of the Children to same Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, who can take better care of them, so both sides can live in peace, without the tensions of an unsettled divorce case, which is traumatic on the children as well as on the parents. Out of humaneness, the Supreme Court should have consid- ered Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s letter of January 9, 1976, which was returned Jan. 13, 1976, by clerk Suzuki, which noted “case No. 5930” was “pau”. (EXHIBIT “AUGH”) This is delay as Obstruction of Justice for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for moneys earned and against the Court’s Violation of my American Con- stitutional Rights* and its First Amendment or the Twenty- seventh Amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment, for Equal pay for Equal work performed. Will the Court hereby ORDER A CHECK FOR THE $1,250.00, which Defendants-Appellees, Alfred Alphonse Yee, et al, does owe Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se as part of last year’s (1975) alimony, for temporary relief until This Court can ORDER A CHECK FOR $3 million for Plaintiff-Arrellant Pro Se Janice Ching Yee, not forgetting to deduct amounts of alimony for 1972-1975, amounting to an ap- proximate $100,000.00 and bank interest as pled in the Hearing of October 21. 1975, of $240,600.00, whereby this bank interest can be paid for by Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who thanks This Court who can ORDER A CHECK THEN FOR $2,660,000.00 for PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE FOR COMPLETE SETTLEMENT, and thereby can ignore the Court’s Violation of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s American Constitutional Rights* and its Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Four- teenth Amendments against Cruel and Unusual Punishment of Deprivation of Income for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for a Fast Trial or Fast Determination of This Case and thereby against the Court’s Violation of these Amendments against Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Deception by the Courts whose sinis- ter intentions to hide or delete a portion of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s case, namely case No. S.C. 5930, is evident. This is also a Violation of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s American Con- stitutional Rights* and its Sixth Amendment against a delayed trial by various methods of Deception by the lower Family Court, which should not be contributed to by Hawaii’s Supreme Court. *ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BRITTANICA, (vol. 6) page 501-507. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, CAN THIS COURT GRANT THIS APPEAL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT PRO SE JANICE CHING YEE WHO HEREBY THANKS THIS COURT FOR ITS TIME. /s/Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiif-Appellant Pro Se 3169 Alika Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817 Dated, February 16, 1976. *page 2. MRS. JANICE CHING YEE IST CIRCUIT COURT 3169 Alika Avenue STATE OF HAWAII Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817 FILED Telephone: 5953426 1976 MAR 22 PM 239 PLAINTIFF PRO SE he on IN THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff Pro Se, FC-D No. 81258 Vs. ) ) ) ) ) ALFRED ALPHONSEE YEE) and or ) ALFRED A. YEE & ) ASSOCIATES, ) Defendanjs ) AMENDMENT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se hereby Motions for Amendment. according to Rule 15 of HAWAIT'S RULES OF CIVIL PRO- CEDURE; for request to stipulate the deletion of the Hearing set for Thursday, March 25, 1976, since this case (FC-D, No. $1258) has been argued so many times from the initial action for divorce: 1) initiated September 16, 1971; 2) filed Complaint, September 14, 1972; 3) hearing of February 12, 1973; 4) FINAL ABSOLUTE DIVORCE, FILED MARCH 1, 1973; 5) hearing of July 20, 1973; 6) hearing of September 7, 1973; 7) hearing of April 18, 1974 8) hearing of September 6, 1974; 9) hearing of January 24, 1975; 10) hearing of April 4, 1975; 11) hearing of April 23, 1975; 12) hearing of June 16, 1975; APPENDIX “B(10)” AMENDMENT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGEMENT 13) hearing of June 24, 1975; and 14) hearing of August 6, 1975; whereby it really does not need another argument or hearing. May the Motions of February 23, 1976, and this Motion of March 22, 1976, also be considered part and parcel of all plead- ings for Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se who hereby again pleads for a Complete Final Settlement for $3 million for Plaintiff (Ap- pellant) Pro Se for Final Absolute Divorce; for this as Equitable Settlement for a marriage of 20 years and five (5) Legitimate chidlren, whereby same Plaintiff Janice Ching Yee, as Mother and ex-wife, once helped to build up the person and name of Alfred Alphonse Yee and/or Alfred A. Yee & Associates, from an income of $3000.00 per year for its top executive Alfred Al- phonse Yee to income to $105.000.00 for this top executive at moment of divorce, whereby this Alfred Yee does owe Janice Ching Yee, same Plaintiff (Appellant) Pro Se $3 million for Judgment on the Pleadings as pled, per Rule /2(c) of Ha- WAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and/or Rule 56(a) of these RULES, for Summary Judgement for Plaintiff (Appel- lant) Pro Se for Custody of the Children to same Plaintiff Jan- ice Ching Yee, for I can teach the Children better; and I hereby think the Hawaii’s Family Court for its time. s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee 3169 Alika Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817 Telephone: 5953426 Dated, March 22, 1976. APPENDIX “B(10)" NO. 5930 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1974 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VS. ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, and or ALFRED A. YEE & ASSOCIATES, Defendant-Appellee. RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL No. 483888 Sent To: Ed Chun Date: September 22, 1975 APPENDIX “B(11)” me me ee ee ee ee ee me ee” eee mee” mee mee” ne” eee” eee ee” ee” FC-D No. 81258 APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OR JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURTS OTHER THAN FOR FINAL DIVORCE, PAYMENTS DUE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT, AND/OR DISCHARGE OF THE “GUARDIAN AD LITEM”: FOR DIVORCE COMPLAINT OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1972 INITIATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1971), THROUGH TO THE LAST DECISION OR JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURTS FILED JUNE 26, 1975. FIRST CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY COURT Honorable Betty Vitousek Judge adi ila LYNOOD AWAYNdDS NHAL uny.) ‘Hf waway,) s $L6l WY tt 870 dd MOTION FOR SPECIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND CUSTODY; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR CUSTODY AND RECONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY ALIMONY PAYMENTS AND CHILD SUPPORT | hereby certify that two copies of these Motions have been sent to attorney Ed Chun, for Defendant-Appellee Alfred Alphonse Yee, properly addressed and postage prepaid, from the U.S. Post Office at Honolulu, Hawaii, this 22nd day of September, 1975. s/Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se 3169 Alika Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 APPENDIX “B(11)” NO. 5930 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1974 JANICE CHING YEE, FC-D No. 8/258 APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OR JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURTS OTHER THAN FOR FINAL DIVORCE, PAYMENTS DUE Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs. ALFRED ALPHONSE YEE, and or AND/OR DISCHARGE ALFRED A. YEE & OF THE “GUARDIAN ASSOCIATES, AD LITEM”: FOR OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1972, (INITIATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1971) THROUGH TO THE LAST DECISION OR JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURTS FILED JUNE 26, 1975. Defendant-Appellee. FIRST CIRCUIT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVORCE COMPLAINT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAMILY COURT ) Honorable Betty Vitousek Judge MOTION FOR SPECIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND CUSTODY; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR CUSTODY AND RECONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY ALIMONY PAYMENTS AND CHILD SUPPORT These Motions are in addition to Plaintiff-Appellant’s OPEN- ING BRIEF FOR APPEAL TO HAWAIIS SUPREME PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. COURT for Plaintiff-Appellant. The Jurisdiction of this court to hear and grant this APPEAL from Honolulu, Hawaii, residence of the parties involved, rests on Chapter 602-5 of Hawaii's Revised Statutes and Rule 73 of Hawaii's Rules of Civil Procedure and also by recommendation of the lower court's Judge Betty Vitousek per page 6 of the “transcript” of the Friday April 4, 1975 hearing or per “rran- script” of the hearing of April 23, 1975 or “transcript” of the hearing of June 24, 1975, where all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s Mo- tions for Amended Complaints or Reconsideration by Judge Betty Vitousek were denied by the lower court's Betty Vitousek. ex-judge of the case in the family court previously. By REASON of Judge Betty Vitousek’s incompetance. and according to Rule 63 of Hawaii's Rules of Civil Procedure and the neglect of her office to file Notice of Entry of Order, can the Supreme Court of Hawaii please accept Plaintiff-Appellant Janice Ching Yee’s Notice of (original) Appeal of Monday, May 5, 1975 against Judge Betty Vitousek’s decisions or for the rec- ommendation for Appeal to the Supreme Court, mentioned on Friday, April 4, 1975 as timely, and include the denials of April 23, 1975 and June 24, 1975 as part and parcel of this APPEAL. Plaintiff-Appellant Janice Ching Yee hereby asks the Honor- able Justices of the Supreme Court of Hawaii to grant Plaintiff- Appellant's Motion for Special Summary Judgement for $3 million for Janice Ching Yee, Plaintiff-Appellant and custody of the children against the degradation and or humiliation of detailed explanations of why Alfred Alphonse Yee, Defendant- Appellee does owe Plaintiff-Appellant $3 million for all of the MERITS of Plaintiff-Appellant’s pertinent Complaints, Amend- ed Complaints, Motions, Memorandums of Law, Arguments, and Exhibits, against Conspiracy or Collusion, as once argued previously, and eight (8) other Conspirators* or Colluders* for the past forty-eight (48) destructive months (from inception of divorce) of Coercion for Destruction. As a last resort, “IN THE ALTERNATIVE”, can the Court grant Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion for “TEMPORARY ALI- MONY™ payment and Chiid Support immediately for the Monetary Relief for Plaintiff-Appellant to balance Plaintiff- Appellant's Statement of Income and Expenses as follows: INCOME AND EXPENSES (Average per month, 1975) INCOME: Alimony $1,250.00 Repayment of Loan per “Sixth Supplemental” 350.00 Part repayment of unpaid alimony 83.00 Gift from Mother K.L Ching 250.00 Parents’ trust —gift 80.00 Average dividends— stock 30.00 Sale of books 5.00 APPROXIMATE AVERAGE INCOME PER MONTH $2,048 00 EXPENSES: Federal Taxes, approx. (defrayed due to lack of funds) State Taxes, approx. (part defrayed due to lack of funds) Mortgage: Alika Other Pool Supples {unexpected expenses for repair, etc. caused by lack of funds for better equipment) Liberty House (defrayed for lack of funds for new clothes, or supplies as towels, sheets, stationery, etc.) Gas & Car Repairs, tires etc. insurance ~—-life, car, etc. Medical & Dental (defrayed for lack of funds) HMSA Food Printing. postage, etc. Appliance and TV fixing (defrayed from lack of funds) Utilities - electric, water, gas. Telephone Working women for 2 days working | day ($120.00 defrayed for lack of funds) Yardwork $ 200.00 200.00 419.00 320.00 50.00 150.00 100.00 70.00 20.00 14.00 450.00 100.00 50.00 125.00 50.00 240.00 120.00 Donations - (normal about $100 -defrayed) 20.00 APPROXIMATE AVERAGE EXPENSES PER MONTH $2,698.00 THEREFORE: MONTHLY DEFICIT COMPOUNDED BY DECREASE IN ALIMONY = $650.00 DEFICIT OF UNPAID BILLS CAUSED BY LACK OF FUNDS: Taxes (for withholding) 4,600.00 Chun Hoon Markets 1,331.10 FHB Master Charge 604.75 Phillips Petroleum 92.95 (monthly payments charged paid 8 out of 17 installments) THEREFORE: MONTHLY DEFICIT COMPOUNDED BY DECREASE IN ALIMONY AS OPPOSED TO PLEA OF OCTOBER 25, 1974 (EXH. “C” of plea enclosed) AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT $7,278.80 OF UNPAID BILLS ee Because of this. can the Court RECONSIDER and Grant Piaintiff-Appellani’s Motion for Special Summary Judgement and Custody; or in the Alternative Grant Motion for Temporary Alimony of $4000.00 per month for Plaintiff-Appellant, so | can also cover the taxes due and slowly but surely pay the grocery bill and FHB bill and other unpaid bills. Can you believe this doesn’t even cover “Child Support” for the four (4) days the children live with Mother JCY, not including the groceries, which should amount to another $500.00 per month, making $100.00 each child for clothes, phone calls, recreation, entertainment (gang doings, or movies, or plays, etc.) film and development or supplies as paper, vitamins, band aid, toothpaste, listerine, from the drugstore. This is an abom- ination of spirit against this type of details, which should not be drawn out for reasonable men or women. Why should Judge Betty Vitousek’s MALICE cause her to wait from October 25, 1974 until April 4, 1975 to answer a woman's plea for help (not mentioning the other interims of waiting for help) and then decrease the alimony instead of in- crease it? Alfred Yee’s gross income for 1974 proved $105,000.00+ and I cannot see any excuse to cut down instead of increase the sum of alimony. Notice Alfred Yee’s or Chun’s or Judge Betty Vitousek’s sneaky way of using the repayment of loan from joint savings ($350.00) added to the minimum ali- mony of $1250.00 (this covers mortgage and groceries —then everything else is an unpaid bill) to make alimony seem as if its $1600.00 per month but it isn’t really because the extra $350.00 is actually used to catch up on bills in arrears. This way you never catch up. This is COERCED DEGRADATION AND DESTITUTION AND DESTRUCTION BY VIOLA- TION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST DEPRI- VATION OF INCOME AND CIVIL RIGHTS. For a fact, Plaintitf-Appellant has spent $20,000.00 of Plain- tiff-Appellant’s own money from family savings accounts from birth or inheritance. This was used to pay the bills not reim- bursed as of yet. 1972, 1973, and 1974, Alfred Yee’s PERJURY OR Ed Chun’s PERJURY said Alfred Yee was not receiving salary or taking a cut in salary, but how come Alfred Yee re- ported average gross income of $100,000.00 for 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974? This is not fair and proves for Plaintiff-Appel- lant against Judge Betty Vitousek who is not capable as judge for Hawan’s Family Court. Can the Supreme Court please Grant Plaintiff-Appellant Janice Ching Yee $3 million for Sum- mary Judgement for REASON and MERIT for monetary claims and for custody of the children by September. 1975 for Punitive, General, Actual, Compensatory, Exemplary and Spe- cial Damages, according to Hawaii’s Revised Statutes, Sec. 634-46 or Hawaii's Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(a) OR in the Alternative, Grant Motion for Reconsideration for Tempo- rary Alimony for immediate Relief, should the case extend be- yond the month of September, 1975. I hope it does not need to extend after all for with Summary "‘udgement and all of the REASONS given for MERIT, can the Supreme Court Grant Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion for Custody of the children, for as Mother Janice Yee | can take better care of them. s Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Dated September 22. 1975 Honolulu. Hawaii INCOME AND EXPENSES FOR MRS. JANICE CHING YEE INCOME — monthly EXPENSES: — Monthly Taxes — Fed. prorated State prorated Mortgage Alika Ave. others Pool supplies Liberty House for clothes, etc. Gas and car repairs Insurance life car, etc., prorated Medical & Dental HMSA Food Priiiting, postage, etc. Appliance & TV fixings Utilities Telephone Working woman Yardwork Donations total expended not paid from May |, 1974 to September, 1974 $ 300.00 100.00 423.00 400.00 20.00 150.00 100.00 $0.00 20.00 14.00 350.00 50.00 25.00 70.00 50.00 240.00 60.00 __25.00 $2547.00 Exhibit “V2” (EXH. “VEF”) Dated - Oct. 25, 1974 for plea of date deficit $2200.00 2547.00 $ 347.00 UNPAID BILLS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII October 25, 1974 OCTOBER TERM 1975 Publication of books $2900.00 600.00 JANICE CHING YEE, CiVIL NOS. 44240 400.00 44578 Plaintiff-Appellant, 44244 Taxes (withholding) 4600.00 45123 Chun Hoon Markets 538.00 v. 44262 Val’s appliance for freezer 200.00 44263 Pool supplies 133.00 | ROBERT G. HOGAN, 44970 Yardwork 180.00 et al. (NO. 5971) Bills outstanding— $9551.00 ROBERT A. FRANKLIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) (NO. 5949) ) MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE et al. (NO. 5969) ) APPEALS HAROLD NICKELSEN, ) AND et. al. (NO, 5969) ' MOTION BETTY VITOUSEK, Judge, ) FOR JUDGMENT et al. (NO. 6008) ) ON THE PLEADINGS JAMES KOSHIBA, et al. ) (NO. 5970) ) GERRY NAGAHISA, et al.) (NO. 5924) ) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK ) (NO. 5943), ) ) Defendants-Appellees. sdyiiyd “NX uN, Ss eT p We TI NVE 9L61 aa LHNOOD ANAM IS WHA 1) APPENDIX “C(1)” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT G. HOGAN, et al. (NO. 5971) ROBERT A. FRANKLIN (NO. 5949) HAROLD NICKELSEN, et al. (NO. 5969) BETTY VITOUSEK, Judge. et al. (NO. 6008) JAMES KOSHIBA, et al. (NO. 5970) GERRY NAGAHISA, et al. (NO. 5924) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK (NO. 5943), Defendants-Appellees. CIVIL NOS. 44240 ON THE PLEADINGS ) ) 44578 ) 44244 ) 45123 ) 44262 ) 44263 ) 44970 ) MOTION TO ) CONSOLIDATE ) APPEALS ) ) AND ) ) MOTION FOR ) JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER The Motion to Consolidate Appeals Against Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for Depreivation of Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Ap- pellant, and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on December 5, 1975, are denied without argument. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 12, 1976. SEAL FOR LHE COURT: ‘s/ William O. Richards Chief Justice NO. 5949 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. FRANKLIN (NO. 5949) HAROLD NICKELSEN, et al. (NO. 5969) BETTY VITOUSEK, Judge, et al. (NO. 6008) JAMES KOSHIBA, et al. (NO. 5970) GERRY NAGAHISA, et al. (NO. 5924) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK (NO. 5943) ROBERT G. HOGAN, et al. (NO. 5971), Defendants-Appellees. ORDER CIVIL NOS. 44578 44244 45123 44262 44263 44869 44240 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MOTION FOR ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LYIOD AWAAdIS WHA IO APPENDIX “C(1)” uny.) Hf woWa) s RECONSIDERATION RP t Wd tl Add 926! aaa IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, CIVIL NOS. 44578 Defendants-Appellees. ) ) 44244 Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 45123 ) 44,262 v. ) 44263 ) 44869 ROBERT A. FRANKLIN ) 44240 (NO. 5949) ) HAROLD NICKELSEN, ) et al. (NO. 5969) ) BETTY VITOUSEK, Judge, ) et al. (NO. 6008) ) JAMES KOSHIBA, et al. ) MOTION FOR (NO. 5970) ) RECONSIDERATION GERRY NAGAHISA, etal.) (NO. 5924) ) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK _) (NO. 5943) ) ROBERT G. HOGAN, et al.) (NO. 5971), ) ) ) ) ORDER The Court, having considered appellant’s “Objection to Or- der of January 12, 1976, Denying Motion of December 5, 1975; and Motion for Reconsideration of December 5, 1975's ‘Motion to Consolidate Appeals, Etc.’”, and the attached documents, filed on January 21, 1976, hereby denies appellant's motion for reconsideration. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 13. 1976. FOR THE COURT: s William S. Richardson WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON Chief Justice STANLEY T. KANETAKE, #743-0 IST CIRCUIT COURT 228 Kuulei Road wee aes Kailua, Hawaii 96734 Tel. No. 262-6596 1975 JUN 30 AM & 38 R.S. YAMADA Attorney for Defendant CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, Civil No. 44869 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING VS. MOTION TO DISMISS STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS The Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss the above-entitled ac- tion having come on regularly for hearing before the presiding Judge of the above-entitled Court on May 29, 1975, counsel for the Defendant and Plaintiff being present in Court, the Court being fully advised in the premises and good cause ap- pearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss be and is hereby granted and it is hereby ordered that the above- entitled cause shall be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear their own respective costs and attor- ney’s fees. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 20, 1975, nunc pro tunc as of May 29, 1975. JUN 30 1975 's/ Norito Kawakami (SEAL) JUDGE OF THE ABOVE- ENTITLED COURT APPENDIX “C(2\a)” 1 do hereby certify that this is a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in this office. R.S. Yamada Clerk, Circuit Court, First Circuit State of Hawaii APPENDIX “C(2) (a)” WILLIAM L. FLEMING 188-0 IST CIRCUIT COURT CADES SCHUTTE FLEMING mines: pata & WRIGHT " 165 South King Street 1975 JUN 16 AM 8 0S Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 ". SETO (Box 939 Honolulu 96808) CLERK Tel. No. 531-7232 Attorney for Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, CIVIL NO. 44240 ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT ) VS. ) ) ROBERT G. HOGAN, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Order Dismissing Amended Complaint filed herein on May 7, 1975, it is hereby: ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the plain- tiff take nothing, that this action be dismissed on the merits and that the defendants recover from the plaintiff their costs to be taxed in this action. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, JUN 16 1975 . Norito Kawakami JUDGE OF THE ABOVE- ENTITLED COURT APPENDIX “C(2\(b)” APPROVED AS TO FORM: JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff Pro Se I do hereby certify that this is a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in this office. 's/H. Seto Clerk, Circuit Court, First Circuit State of Hawaii APPENDIX “C(2) (by” RONALD Y. AMEMIYA 694 IST CIRCUIT COURT Attorney General st ——— State of Hawaii 1975 AUG 28 AM 905 s RS. Yamad CEDRIC CHOI 1375 = S YAMADA Deputy Attorney General CLERK State Capitol 415 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. No. 548-4740 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, CIV. NO. 45123 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION Vs. TO DISMISS BETTY VITOUSEK, Judge. and or THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, Detendants. Nw me eee ee ee ee eee ee” ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants Judge Betty Vitousek and the Family Court of the State of Hawaii having made a motion for dismissal of the complaint herein for failure to state a claim and the Court hav- ing heard oral argument of counsel for Defendants and of Plain- tiff, pro se, on August 6, 197, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, and due consideration given, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED APPENDIX “C(2\Xc)” that the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is here- by granted. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, AUG 27 1975. s Harold Y. Shintaku Judge of the above entitled Court APPENDIX “C(2) (c)” RONALD Y. AMEMIYA 694 IST CIRCUIT COURT Attorney General a * wo State of Hawaii , 1975 APR Il AM 10 28 NELSON S.W. CHANG 726 ee suse Deputy Attorney General CLERK State Capitol 415 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. No. 548-4740 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, CIV. NO. 44263 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAIN- TIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, VS. GERRY NAGAHISA, et al., Defendants. ee ee ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Defendants, Geraldine Nagahisa and Elizabeth Adams, having filed motions for summary judgment on February 24, 1975, and the Plaintiff Janice Ching Yee, having filed a mo- tion for summary judgment on March 5, 1975, and this Court having considered all memoranda filed herein and oral argu- ments in open court on Marck 13, 1975, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment be and is hereby granted, and accordingly, that the Plaintiff's motion for APPENDIX “C(2\(d)” summary judgment be and is hereby denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, APR 10 1975. /s/ NORITO KAWAKAMI JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff pro se I do hereby certify that this is a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in this office, . /s/E.K. BUSH Clerk, Circuit Court, First Circuit State of Hawaii APPENDIX “C(2) (d)” RONALD Y. AMEMIYA 694 IST CIRCUIT COURT Attorney General STATE OF HAWAII -- FILED State of Hawaii 1975 May 7 PM | 47 NELSON S.W. CHANG 726 ae vaneme Deputy Attorney General ~ CLERK State of Hawaii Hawaii State Capitol 415 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. No. 548-4740 Attorney for Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, CIV. NO. 44263 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RETRIAL, MOTION TO AMENDCOMPLAINT, MOTION TOSTRIKE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT VS. GERRY NAGAHISA, et al., Defendants. Nm me eee ee ee ee ee” ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RETRIAL, MOTION TO AMENDCOMPLAINT, MOTION TOSTRIKE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Janice Ching Yee, having filed motions for re- trial; to amend complaints; to strike defendants’ memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration; and for summary judgment, on April 14, 1975, and this Court having considered all memoranda filed -herein, the record and oral arguments in open court on April 30, 1975, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all of said motions be and is hereby denied. DATED. Honolulu, Hawaii, May 7, 1975. APPENDIX “C(2\d)” /s/ Norito Kawakami Norito Kawakami JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT APPENDIX “C(2)d)” WILLIAM L. FLEMING 188-0 IST CIRCUIT COURT CADES SHUTTE FLEMING aoe’ > eee & WRIGHT 165 South King Street 1975 JUN 16 AM 8 04 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 4". SETO (Box 939 Honolulu 96808) CLERK Tel. No. 531-7232 Attorney for Defendants IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, ) CIVIL NO. 44244 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT vs. HAROLD NICKELSEN, etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JUDGMENT oj Pursuant to the Order Dismissing Amended Complaint filed herein on May 7, 1975, it is hereby; ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the plaintiff take nothing, that this action be dismissed on the merits and that the defendants recover from the plaintiff their costs to be taxed in this action. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 16, 1975. /s/ Norito Kawakami Norito Kawakami JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT APPENDIX “C(2e)” APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILLIAM L. FLEMING 188-0 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff Pro Se CADES SCHUTTE FLEMING & WRIGHT 165 South King Street I do hereby certify that this is a full, true and correct copy of the Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 original on file in this office. (Box 939 Honolulu 96808) /s/H. Seto Tel. No. 531-7232 H. Seto Clerk, Circuit Court, First Circuit Attorney for Defendants State of Hawaii IST CIRCUIT COURT | STATE OF HAWAII FILED 1975 JUN 16 AM 8 01 H. SETO CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff, JAMES E. KOSHIBA, et al., ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) JUDGMENT CIVIL NO. 44262 JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Order Dismissing Amended Complaint filed herein on May 7, 1975, it is hereby; ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the plaintiff take nothing, that this action be dismissed on the merits and that the defendents recover from the plaintiff their costs to be taxed in this action. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 16, 1975. /s/ Norito Kawakami Norito Kawakami JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT APPENDIX “C(2)(e)” APPENDIX “C(2\(f)” APPROVED AS TO FORM: JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff Pro Se | do hereby certify that this is a full, true and correct copy of the original on file in this office. /s/H. Seto H. Seto Clerk, Circuit Court, First Circuit State of Hawaii APPENDIX “C(2\f)” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 APPEAL AGAINST THE LOWER COURTS’ JUDGMENTS FOR DENIAL OF REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST CONSPIRATORS* NAMED FOR DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF CIVIL NO. 44240 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ROBERT HOGAN, ETAL, ) (NO. 5971) ) ROBERT FRANKLIN, ) (NO. 5949) ) HAROLD NICKLESEN, ET ) AL (NO. 5969) ) JUDGE BETTY VITOUSEK, ) ET AL, (NO. 6008) ) JAMES KOSHIBA, &/OR ) THE HBA, (NO. 5970) ) BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, & ) /OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ) ET AL, (NO. 5924) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, ) (NO. 5943) ) Defendant(s)-Appellee(s). —) ) 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 PRO SE; MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS: Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby moves the Court to CON- SOLIDATE all APPEALS of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se to APPEAL as one for CONSOLIDATION against all Defend- ant(s)-Appellee(s) CONSOLIDATED FOR CONSPIRACY FOR PREJUDICED PERSECUTION BY MALICIOUS CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 APPENDIX “C(3)” ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPEL- LANT PROSE AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS* NAMED: *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, NO. 5971; ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949; HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969; JUDGE BETTY VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008; DR. BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, &/OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL, NO. 5924 JAMES KOSHIBA &/OR THE HAWAII BAR ASSOCIA- TION, NO. 5970; and STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, NO. 5943. The Grounds for tue Motion are whereby all Defendant(s)- Appellee(s) are bound by the common grounds of CONSPIR- ACY by all for PREJUDICED PERSECUTION BY MAL- ICLOUS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR DEPRI- VATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAIN- TIFF-APPELLANT PROSE AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY, instigated and perpetrated by part and perpetrated by the re- mainder of the group. This MOTION CONSOLIDATES THE APPEALS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES FOR THE CONSPIRACY FOR PREJUDICED PERSECUTION BY MALICIOUS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR CO. ERCED IGNOMINY BY DEGRADATION, DECEPTION, DEFAMATION, LIBEL, AND SLANDER, AND COERCED DESTITUTION BY GROSS CHEAT, FALSE PRETENSES, FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND ALL LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE AGAINST THIS COERCED DESTRUCTION BY DEFENDANTS-AP- PELLEES. These Allegations will be considered in order later. This MOTION excludes the other crimes or violations by the Defendant(s)-Appellee(s) and leaves the Defendant(s)- Appellee(s) as individuals to defend their individual crimes or violations, which the Defendant(s)-Appellee(s) committed as separate individuals. Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby moves the Court for a Judgement on the Pleadings for Plaintiff, according to Rule 12(c) of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, or for Summary Judgement for Plainuff-Appellant Pro Se, according to Rule S6(a) of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. The JURISDICTION of This Court to Hear and Grant this APPEAL FOR THESE MOTIONS resides on HA WAITS RE- VISED STATUTES, Chapter 602-5; Rule 73 of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT, Rule 2(d) and HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT RULES’ CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY’'S ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS EC7-22. APPENDIX “C(3) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, MEMORANDUMS OF POINTS AND AUTHORI- TIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS VS. ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, (NO. 5971) ROBERT FRANKLIN, (NO. 5949) HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL (NO. 5969) JUDGE BETTY VITOUSEK, ET AL, (NO. 6008) JAMES KOSHIBA, &/OR THE HBA, (NO. 5970) BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, &/ OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL, (NO. 5924) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, (NO. 5943) Defendant(s)-Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44240 CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 ee ee MEMORANDUMS OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby moves the Court for CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS, according to HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT RUIES, Rule 2(d): “Consolidation, When c ses 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 proceed- ings to avoid any unnecessary costs or delay.” It is expeditious for this Court to GRANT this MOTION for CONSOLIDATION, and may it please do so, for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se’s Legal APPEALS against the Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Maiicious Abuse of Judicial Process by Coerced Ignominy effected by defraud, degradation, decep- tion, defamation, libel, and slander AND Coerced Destitu- tion by Swindle or Gross Cheat, False Pretenses, Defraud, and Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights, including American Constitutional Rights for Plaintiff-Appeilant Pro Se. For, according to HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES, Chap- ter 728-1: “Conspiracy defined. \f two or more persons conspire: (1) to commit any offense” tfor example, as swindle, prejudiced persecution, “false arrest”, coercion and duress, malicious abuse of judicial process, defamation, libel or slander, restraint of person or trade, violation of American Constitutional Rights or all Legal Rights, AND/OR obstruction of Justice... “(2) to instigate or incite another or others to commit any offense” tfor example, perjury and coercion and thereiore con- spiracy as a small example by Kokernak, Koshiba, Naga- hisa and Adams as perpetrators of conspiracy as insti- gated by Al Yee, Chun, Hogan, Vitousek and perpetrated by them and Nickelsen and Franklin as active per- petrators... “(4) to cause another to be arrested, charged, for any of- fense, knowing them to be innocent thereof:” tfor example, the Defamatory Perjured “severe chronic mental illness” Adams’ report, which instigated the loss of custody and instigated and contributed to the Illegal “false arrest” “guardian ad litem” order or recent Illegal “false arrest” “trustee” order... “each shall be duilty of Conspiracy.” AND according to Chapter 728-2: “Joining in after formation. Any person knowingly acceding to and joining in a conspiracy after the” same “is formed, is a party thereto, no less than the one who originally takes part in forming the same.” tfor example, this includes Nickelsen, Koshiba, or Robert Franklin, or any others after they, including Judge Norito Kawakami or John Parks or David Ingman. AND according to Chapter 728-3 and Chapter 728-4: “Act in pursuance of, unnecessary. \t is not requisite that the act agreed upon should be done or attempted in pursuance of the conspiracy; the conspiracy itself constitutes the offense.” “Act of any is that of all. The act of each party to a conspira- cy, in pursuance thereof; is the act of all.” tfor example, the act was effected for loss of custody and respect of the children for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Janice Ching Yee against also the loss of income, whereby more than $30,000.00 of Plaintiff-Appellant’s money and inheritance has been spent. ($10,000.00 family savings (Plaintiff's), $9,000.00 as gifts from Plaintiffs mother, $8,000.00 from parents’ trust and $3,000.00 once placed in savings for Plaintiffs children by Plaintiff who had to borrow the money for the interim. Will the Court please excuse any seeming discrepancies men- tioned earlier, for not all sources were included together. This was not intentional, merely not thought out. Can the Court also not limit the amount of the fine against Defendant(s)-Appellee(s) for their first degree Conspiracy, un- less it is part; according to EXHIBITS of amounts owed by each**; and parcel of Restitution for Claims for Plaintiff-Ap- pellant against the immensity of their crimes, which should all be punishable for Restitution for Monetary Claims for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se for Complaints against Defendant(s)-Appel- lee(s). So, can the Court please weigh the Pleadings by Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se, according to Rule /2(c) of HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE against the Defendants- Appellees and fine them according to This Court’s discretion for the largest amount of Restitution for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, and can the Court be challenged, according to HA- WAITS SUPREME COURT RULES, Ethical Consideration EC7-22 to Reconsider their Judgements and Order Judgement on Pleadings of Plaintiff-Appellant for COMPLETE SETTLE- MENT AS SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT PRO SE against Conspirator* Alfred Alphonse Yee, et al, for his sad part in this horrible Conspiracy against his ex-wife Janice Yee of 20 (twenty) years of marriage and 5 (five) legitimate children. Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby hopes This Court can see its way clear to reopen case No. 5930 for a New Trial, accord- *Page |. **page 3a-EXHIBIT. ing to Rule 59(aX2) of HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PRO- CEDURE against Alfred Alphonse Yee et al, Defendants- Appellees; and also include and reopen case No. 5903 for a New Trial against Conspirator* Edward Chun, et al, who con- ducted a defense for Alfred Yee for Malicious Harassment and Injury of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee. **EXHIBITS FOR RESTITUTION ROBERT HOGAN ET AL, (NO. 5971) per EXHIBIT “HLL” ROBERT FRANKLIN ET AL, (NO. 5949 per EXHIBIT “IS-X” HAROLD NICKELSEN ET AL, (NO. 5969) per EXHIBIT “NON” JUDGE BETTY VITOUSEK ET AL, (NO. 6008) per EX- HIBIT “VXN” (p.s. BETTY VITOUSEK MUST PAY THE INSURANCE LOSS—IT WAS DELIBERATE MALEVOLENCE ON HER PART) DR. BETTY ADAMS ET AL, &/OR GERRY NAGAHISA ET AL, (NO. 5924) per EXHIBIT “SS” JAMES KOSHIBA &/OR THE HAWAII BAR ASSOCIA- TION (NO. 5970) per EXHIBIT “KOK” STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, (NO. 5943) per EXHIBIT “KKK-X” For further explanation of the background of this case, or cases, leading up to the present situation; This Conspiracy began in 1971 when instigator, Conspirator* Alfred Alphonse Yee obtained a housekeeper by the name of Stephanie Kokernak, Defendant-Appellee, as the Conspirator* who perpetrated the Conspiracy and helped Coerce divorce by Plaintiff-Appellant Pro se, who once didn’t believe in divorce, but was not against them. By this divorce, Defendants-Appellees Alfred Alphonse Yee, and his counsel, Conspirator* Edward Chun, instigated a defense by Conspiracy for malicious injury by Deprivation of income and all Legal Rights for Plaintiff- Appellant against Plaintiffs ex-counsel, Conspirator* Robert Hogan, who’s treachery as another instigator and perpetrator, *page |. and Judge Betty Vitousek, who lowered herself as another in- stigator Conspirator* to effect thir Deprivation by Prejudiced Judicial Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process as the “false arrest” “guardian ad litem” order which was Illegal; for Conspirator* Harold Nickelsen was Illegal in this void po- sition of “guardian” against a capable American woman as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, JCY, against Defendant-Appellee Gerry Nagahisa et al and/or Dr. Betty Adams et al, whose Per- jured Defamatory Malice Aforethought “severe chronic mental illness” report to “murder” the reputation and good name of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se against both reports which caused loss of custody and personal freedom and income for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se against this perpetration of the conspiracy by Nagahisa and Adams et al as the tools for Coerced Ignominy by Defamation, Libel, and slander to add to Coerced Desti- tution by Swindle by the instigators, Conspirators* for ulti- mate Destruction of Plaintiff-Appellant against Defendants- Appellees Harold Nickelsen who didn’t have the decency to de- cline the Illegal position and report the Conspiracy to the Dis- ciplinary Council of the Hawaii Bar Association. Upon report to the Ethics Committee of the Hawaii Bar Asso- ciation by Plaintiff against Conspirator* Hogan and Con- spirator* Judge Betty Vitousek, James Koshiba, then commit- tee chairman, refused to see Defendants-Appellees Robert Hogan’s Malevolent, Malfeasant, Illegal Impropriety, which was unethical as Hogan neglected to appeal for custody of the children to Plaintiff-Appellant against Hogan's Malfeasant Neglect to Strike or Appeal against the “guardian ad litem” order against his ex-client. Therefore this made James Koshiba, Defendants-Appellees a contributory Conspirator, unethical in the position of Ethics chairman for the Hawaii Bar Associa- tion. The Ethics Committee never answered the complaint against Judge Betty Vitousek, whose Malfeasant, Prejudiced, impropriety was Malice Aforethought for the “murder” or “ju- dicial assassination” of the reputation and good name of Plain- tiff-Appellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee. The grossness of the Conspirators* crimes can be reiterated against their Conspiracy for Prejudiced Judicial Persecution. According to BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY (3rd Edition) 1968: “Gloss vs. People.”: the Court ruled: “Prejudice. Suffering an invasion of one’s legal right. Having one’s pecuniary interest affected by a judgement.” *page | tfor example, the loss of income and personal freedom and custody of the children for Plaintiff-Appellant who con- siders my children treasures of priceless quality for Plain- tiff against their learning hate from Alfred Yee and not fil- ial piety and duty. Or, from BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY, “Hodgins vs. State”: “Prejudice. An opinion formed before the facts are known or in disregard of facts.” tfor example, the total disregard of facts for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se Janice Ching Yee as a capable Ameri- can woman for custody of the children and for Complete Settlement for Plaintiff-Appellant who can manage both. Or, from BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY, “Haslam vs. Morrison”: “Prejudice of Judge. A hostile feeling or spirit of ill will, or undue friendship or favoritism, directed against or for one of the litigants.” Or: “Prejudice of Judge. Pertaining to the mental attitude toward a party to the litigation, not the view entertained re- garding the subject matter involved. 30 AM J. Per ed. J. edges +170.” tfor example of both, the total disregard of Alfred A. Yee’s or Edward Chun’s crime to conduct a defense for mal- icious injury to “get” Al's ex-wife, Janice who should not suffer the Deprivation of income and Legal Rights. Or from CRIMINAL LAW, by Donnelly, Goldstein, and Schwartz, page 540, “Lambert vs. People of California, 355 U.S. 255, 1958”: “Surely there can hardly be a difference as a matter of fair- ness, of hardship, or of justice, if one may invoke it, between the case of a person wholly innocent of wrongdoing, in the sense that he was not remotely conscious of violating any law, who is imprisioned for 5 years for conduct relating to nar- cotics.” “Then too, a cruelly disproportionate relation between what the law requires and the sanction for its disobedience may constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment, as a cruel and unusual punishment, and, in respect to the States, even of- fend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” tfor example, Vitousek’s ex-“guardian ad litem” “false arrest” orders for fourteen (14) months and recent “trustee” “false arrest” orders, which were made as a re- sult of Defamatory Perjured testimony by Betty Adams’ Malice Aforethought to “murder” the reputation of Plain- tiff-Appellant against this Prejudiced Judicial Persecution for Coerced Ignominy and Coerced Destitution for Co- erced Destruction of Plaintiff. This was CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OF LOSS OF CUSTODY AND/OR THE INFLICTION OF AN EX-“GUARDIAN AD LITEM” “FALSE ARREST” ORDER OR LOSS OF INCOME FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE, JCY, WHO NEVER COMMITTEDADULTERY, CRIME, OR DELIBERATE SIN. For according to CRIMINAL LAW, by Donnelly, Goldstein and Schwartz for Due Provess, page 935, “U.S. vs. United Mine Workers”, 330 US 258 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: “This Court has held that the denial of Constitutional guaran- ties in trials for crime is in itself prejudice . . . the other, there was prejudice in the most important thing beyond knowing the nature of the proceedings in advance of trial, namely in the penalty itself.” This was obvious Prejudice against Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who never committed adultery, crime, or deliberate sin as Defendants-Appellees Alfred Alphonse Yee’s defense to mal- iclously harass and injure by deprivation of income for Plaintiff who didn’t deserve to suffer this “involuntary servitude”. For according to CRIMINAL LAW by Donnelly, Goldstein, and Schwartz, page 485 for “U.S. vs. Dowd”, 271 F 2d, 292 (7th Cir. 1959): “The thirteenth Amendment prohibits “involuntary servi- tude” except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” This is unfair for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who didn’t de- serve this cruel treatment, or Prejudiced Persecution by Judge Betty Vitousek or Alfred Alphonse Yee, ex-husband, who's PERJURY AND FALSE PRETENSES of lack of money or business losses as Delay as Obstruction of Justice for Complete Settlement as Proper Restitution for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se against this improper delay of 50 (fifty) months for settlement of what started out as a simple divorce case, which should not be harassed by “involuntary servitude” after all for Piaintiff-Ap- pellant does not want to work for or think of Alfred Alphonse Yee and Associates, for the divorce is FINAL, for Plaintiff- Appellant against this GROSS CHEAT as defined in HA- WAITS REVISED STATUTES, Chapt. 747-1: “Gross Cheat. Whoever designedly, by any false pretense and “with” intent to defraud, obtains from another any money, goods, or other things of value, is guilty of a gross cheat. PC 1869, c 21, +1; RL 1925, +4246; RL 1935 +5960; RL 1945 +11360; RL 1955, +289-1.” May the penalty not be limited by statutes for the amount of money obtained, exceeded an amount of $100,000.00 against the Conspirators* as “confidence men”, according to Sec. 747-24 of HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES, for their Con- spiracy of a Judicial Confidence “Game” by frauduient preten- ses to scheme, trick, and deceive for the Deprivation of income for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. And as according to “Territory vs. Taok,” 33 Haw. 560 (/930): “To constitute the offense of gross cheat, the alleged false pretense must be of some past or existing fact and an in- formation .charging that the defendant pretended”... to promise a service or reward. For a big example, Alfred Alphonse Yee’s promise to his ex- wife Plaintiff Janice Ching Yee for marriage, Plaintiff “never need to worry, for “Plaintiff” would be taken care of for the rest of” Plaintiff's “life”. This proved “FALSE”; for Alfred Alphonse Yee, instead, advocated “involuntary servitude” wherefore Plaintiff-Appel- lant Pro Se had to worry if the next check would decrease or disappear or be late, as a method of mental harassment and mental injury by worry, frustration, and humiliation, trying to make extra money to meet expenses. OR, Robert Hogan or Robert Franklin, or Harold Nickelsen’s NON-ASSERTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS for Plaintiff-Appel- lant Pro Se for “best interests, personal and financial for Plaintiff’ against Coerced Destitution by Deprivation of In- come and all Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. *page |. OR, Stephanie Kokernak, who was supposed to do the maid’s work and not usurp Plaintiff's position as the Woman of the House and Owner, or getting treated as a defamatory “in- competent”, not to be listened to. OR, the promise by James Koshiba of the Hawaii Bar Asso- ciation’s Ethic Committee to “investigate” Robert Hogan’s “Unethical” behavior and not exonerate lack of ethics, there- fore contributing to the Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process against Plaintiff. This is also against Judge Betty Vitousek’s case, which never was in- vestigated. Furthermore, there never was any cause for Coerced Igno- miny by Degradation, Deception, Defraud or Defamation by Robert Hogan, Robert Franklin, Harold Nickelsen, Judge Betty Vitousek, Alfred Alphonse Yee, Edward Chun, James Koshiba and/or the Hawaii Bar Association (with some exceptions men- tioned), Betty Adams and/ or Gerry Nagahisa, or Stephanie Ko- kernak; for the INSINUATION OF INCOMPETANCY by all of them against Plaintiff-Appellant. For, according to CRIMINAL LAW, page 180, “Kelly vs. U.S.", 194 F. 2d, 150 (DC Cir. 1951): “So abominable is the crime, and so destructive is even the accusation of it, of all social right and privilege, that the law considers that the accusation is a coercion which men cannot resist. This seems to be the only case in which a threat to prosecute will supply the place of actual force.” This is similar to Alfred Alphonse Yee’s FALSE ACCUSA- TION of “whore” called out in front of all of the children, or the threat by Defamatory Alfred Alphonse Yee, in which he threatened to “get” his ex-wife, Janice Ching Yee. OR, Dr. Betty Adams MALICE AFORETHOUGHT PER- JURED DEFAMATORY FALSE TESTIMONY AND RE- PORT TO “MURDER” THE REPUTATION AND/OR GOOD NAME OF A GOOD CAPABLE AMERICAN WO- MAN AGAINST THIS INSINUATED INCOMPETANCY, which lost custody and “personal freedom” and income for a good, capable American Woman as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. OR, Judge Betty Vitousek’s Defamatory “false arrest” ex- “guardian ad litem” or recent “false arrest” “trustee” orders, which INSINUATED !NCOMPETANCY and by which, ac- cording to the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF NEGLIGENCE, (vol. #2) page 1147 (sec. 409), “JILLSON vs. CAPRIO”. Mrs. Jillson set a good precedent for women like Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who can collect complete RESTITUTION AGAINST ILLE- GAL RESTRAINT, for*NOT ONLY THE PERPETRATORS, BUT THE INSTIGATORS OF UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE TO ITS VICTIM.” And, according to page 1159 (sec. 410): “ANYONE WHO AIDS A FALSE ARREST IS GUILTY!" This was MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; but against Plain- tiff? For according to LAW OF TORTS by William L. Prosser, (3rd Edition), 1964: “There may be recovery of other damages, designated as “special”, if there is specific pleading and proof. The Plain- tiff may recover compensation for any arrest or imprison- ment, including damages for discomfort or injury to his hcalth, or loss of time and deprivation of the society of his family. He may recover any reasonable expenses to which he has been put in defending the prosecution and establishing his inno- cense, including attorney's fees in the criminal proceeding, although such fees in the action for Malicious Prosecution itself are normally not recoverable. In addition, he may re- cover for any specific financial loss such as the loss of present or prospective employment, which can be proved with rea sonable certainty to have been caused by the prosecution, provided that it is regarded as a foreseeable, or normal, con- sequence of the criminal proceedings.” “Because of the in- tentional and outrageous nature of the tort, malicious prose- cution 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 prose- cution.” This applies to loss of eyesight, and persistent coughing due to lack of sleep for a capable American woman as Plaintiff- Appellant who pleads as Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for lack of money to retain a lawyer in Plaintiffs defense against the ex- “guardian ad litem” “false arrest” or “false arrest” “trustee” order, which should be stricken off Plaintiff-Appellant's good records. This applies to all the money lost or not reimbursed. This also applies to loss of income from Plaintiff's Poetry Book, “THIS GIFT | PRESENT”, due to be distributed Sep- tember, 1975, but it was delayed due to lack of funds earlier; for production was supposedly held up two months in March and April, 1975. This book should be distributed by Vantage Press and on its way to making money, not losing time or money against Judge Betty Vitousek’s ill will for Deprivation of income for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, who more than pleaded in early 1975 for more money to cover printing costs of the book for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se as author. This was also Prejudiced Judicial Persecution by Judge Betty Vitousek and/or Prejudiced Persecution by Judge Norito Ka- wakami, whereby Judge Kawakami's prejudicial judgements VOID any of Kawakami's judgements for Defendant(s)-Appel- lee(s), according to CRIMINAL LAW by Donnelly, Goldstein, and Schwartz, page 966-970, “People vs. Winters”; 171 Cal. App. 2d 876, 342, P. 2d 538 (App. Dept. Sup. Ct. 1959); the Supreme Court ruled: “The dismissals were void because the trial Judge (Kawa- kami) acted in a matter where he openly declared his bias and prejudgment without disqualifying himself.” This makes any of Judge Norito Kawakami's prejudiced judgements VOID since Judge Kawakami said, “What if I were to tell you, you won't get anything out of this?” at a five (5) minute conference called for by Judge Kawakami previous to the first hearing in the lower Circuit Court. After thinking it was for the amateurish attempt to file and/or plead as Plaintiff Pro Se for Legal Unprofessional Complaints, Plaintiff answered, “You haven't read my Amended Complaints filed this morning.” The answer was “NO”, and it was the end of the conference. Therefore, the trial Judge, Kawakami was Prejudiced and “de- clared his bias and prejudgment without disqualifying himself”, and his “dismissals were void”. CONCLUSION Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby prays Hawaii's Supreme Court can understand and set a good Precedent for Hawaii's Supreme Court and GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL against the Conspirators* Names*; and if it please the Court against also Conspirator* Alfred Alphonse Yee et al, and also Conspirator* Edward Chun, et al, after all for all pertinent fact, written or argued for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se *page |. Se for damages as monetary Remedy or Restitution for Claims for Summary Judgement, according to Rule 56(a) or Judgement on the Pleadings of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, according to Rule 12(c) of HAWAITS RULES OF CiVIL PROCEDURE. /s) Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Dated December 5, 1975 Honolulu, Hawaii this 4th day of December, 1975. CCTOBER TERM 1975 /s/ Anne Osenburg Anne Osenburg Notary Public, First Judicial AFFIDAVIT OF PLAIN- TIFF-APPELLANT JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, PRO SE Circuit, State of Hawaii My commission expires: Oct. 15, 1978 VS. ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, CIVIL NO. 44240 (NO. 5971) ROBERT FRANKLIN, (NO. CIVIL NO. 44578 5949) HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET CIVIL NO. 44244 : AL, (NO. 5969) . JUDGE BETTY VITOUSEK, ) CIVIL NO. 45123 { ET AL (NO. 6008) ; JAMES KOSHIBA, &/OR THE HBA (NO. 5970) BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, &; OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL, (NO. 5924) STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, (NO. 5943) Defendant(s)-Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 Nm me ee ee ee ee ee eee” ee” eee” eee” ee” eee” ee” ee” AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE 1am Mrs. Janice Ching Yee, of 3169 Alika Avenue, Honolu- lu, Hawaii, (96817) and being duly sworn and under oath, swear and affirm that all of the transcripts and evidence for this Con- solidated Appeal are a part of the Record of the Appeal of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee vs. Alfred Al- phonse Yee, Defendants-Appellees. | hereby pledge that a Consolidation of Appeal can avoid un- necessary costs and delay and can lead to the expeditious de- termination of Judgements in all Appeals for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. s Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, APPEAL AGAINST THE Plaintiff-Appellant LOWER COURTS’ JUDGE- Pro Se, MENTS FOR DENIAL OF REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST CONSPIRA- TORS* NAMED FOR DEPRIVATION OF IN- COME AND LEGAL vs. RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, NO. 5971 ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949 HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969 JUDGE B. VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008 J. KOSHIBA &/OR THE HAWAII BAR ASSOC., & OR JUDGE N. KAWAKAMI, NO. 5970 BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, &, OR GERRY NAGAHISA ET AL, NO. 5924 STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, NO. 5943 Defendant(s)-Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44240 CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 Nm mr me me ee ee re ere” me” etme” me” ee” et” et” et” met” ee” ee” ee” meet” ee” ee” ee ee” MOTION TO RESERVE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S RIGHTS WILLIAM FLEMING, Attorney for Hogan, Nickelsen, Koshiba. CADES SCHUTTE FLEMING & WRIGHT 165 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 APPENDIX “C(4)” | MAX GARCIA, Attorney for Franklin Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center 190 South King Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 STANLEY KANETAKE, Attorney for Kokernak 228 Kuulei Road Kailua, Oahu 96734 RONALD AMEMIYA 694 NELSON CHANG, 726, Attorneys for Nagahisa & Adams RONALD AMEMIYA 694 CEDRIC CHOI 1375, Attorneys for Vitousek Attorney General & Deputy Attorney General State of Hawaii 415 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 | hereby certify a copy of this motion was served on the individual attorneys for the separate Appellees by certified mail, postage prepaid, this 19th day of December, 1975. MRS. JANICE CHING YEE 3169 Alika Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 APPENDIX “C(4)" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, APPEAL AGAINST THE MENTS FOR DENIAL OF REMEDY FOR PLAIN- TIFF AGAINST CON- SPIRATORS* NAMED FOR DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF VS. *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, NO. 597] ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949 HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969 JUDGE B. VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008 J. KOSHIBA &/OR THE HAWAII BAR ASSOC., &/ OR JUDGE N. KAWAKAMI, NO. 5970 BETTY ADAMS. ET AL, &/ OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL, NO. 5924 STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, NO. 5943 Defendants-Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44240 CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 Nm mr me me ee eee ee ee ee eee eee eee ee” ee” ee” mee eee” MOTION TO RESERVE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS RIGHTS Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby Motions the Court to RE- SERVE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S RIGHTS, according to Chapter 490:1-207 and/or Chapter 490:3-606 of HAWAII'S REVISED STATUTES, for the reservaticn of Plaintiff-Appel- lant’s Legal Rights against Defendants-Appellees, *Alfred Al- phonse Yee et al. and or Defendants-Appellees, *Edward Chun et al. for payments due Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se “without LOWER COURTS’ JUDGE- prejudice”. May this Reservation apply also to the Consolidation of Ap- peals against the Conspirators* (named) according to the De- cember 5, 1975 “MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS AGAINST CONSPIRACY”. Also, Plaintiff-Appellant hereby reserves mention of Defendants-Appellees’ (case No. 5930) 1974 Gross Income until a copy of Alfred A. Yee’s personal gross income tax state- ment is received, for any erroneous mention of 1974's gross income was 1973's gross income actually, which was deceptively received. Upon realizing this error, Mr. Latham of Harris, Kerr, Foster, was contacted for a copy. For proper procedure, Mr. Latham sent a copy to Mr. Chun according to Mr. Latham. Not getting Defendants-Appellees Alfred A. Yee’s counsel Edward Chun (Defendants-Appellees No. 5903), Mr. Kerr, of Chun, Kerr, and Dodd said he would ask Mr. Chun to mail a copy, and not wish- ing to leave this error unattended to, this Motion is hereby Motioned. | hereby thank the Justices for This Right for Plaintiff-Ap- pellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee. s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Dated December 19, 1975 Honolulu, Hawaii IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, APPEAL AGAINST THE LOWER COURTS’ JUDGEMENTS FOR DENIAL OF REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST CONSPIRACY FOR DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAIN- TIFF PRO SE CIVIL NO. 44240 Plaintitf-Appellant Pro Se, VS. *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL. NO. 5971 ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949 HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969 JUDGE B. VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008 J. KOSHIBA AND/OR THE HAWAII BAR ASSOCIATION, NO. 5970 BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, AND OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL, NO. 5924 STEPHANIE KOKERNAK., NO. 5943 Defendants-Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 lett ee ee ee MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE MEMORANDUMS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE (not included) APPENDIX “C(5)” WILLIAM FLEMING, Attorney for Hogan, Nickelsen, Koshiba, et al. CADES SCHUTTE FLEMING & WRIGHT 165 South King Street; Hon., Hi., 96813 MAX GARCIA, Attorney for Franklin Suite 990 Pacific Trade Center 190 South King Street; Hon., Hi., 96813 STANLEY KANETAKE, Attorney for Kokernak 228 Kuulei Road; Kailua, Oahu, 96734 RONALD AMEMIYA 694, Attorneys for NELSON CHANG 726, Nagahisa & Adams RONALD AMEMIYA 694, Attorneys for CEDRIC CHOI 1375, Vitousek Attorney General and Deputy State of Hawaii 415 South Beretania Street: Hon., Hi. | hereby certify a copy of this motion was served on the individual attorneys for the Defendant(s)-Appellee(s) by certified mail, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of December, 1975. s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee MRS. JANICE CHING YEE 3169 Alika Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817 Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se APPENDIX “C(5)" (Memorandums not included) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, APPEAL AGAINST THE LOWER COURTS’ | JUDGEMENTS FOR DENIAL OF REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST CONSPIRACY FOR DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAIN- TIFF PRO SE CIVIL NO. 44240 Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, VS. *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, NO. 5971 ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949 HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969 JUDGE B. VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008 J. KOSHIBA AND, OR THE) CIVIL NO. 44262 HAWAII BAR ASSOCIA- ) TION, NO. 5970 ) BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, AND, OR GERRY NAGAHISA, ET AL, NO. 5924 STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, NO. 5943 Defendant(s)- Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 Nm me me ee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee” CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 i | | | | | | MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby Motions the Court to GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PROSE’S APPEAL FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR PLAINTIFF-AP- PELLANT; according to Rule 12(c) of HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND/OR THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AND APPELLATE PROCEDURE, or Rule 6(b) of HA- WAITS SUPREME COURT RULES against Defendants-Ap- pellees’ “failure to serve or file a written statement in opposi- tion to a motion”, thereby considered a “waiver of objection” to Grant Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Appeal and/or “Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings” and for the “Motion to Consoli- date Appeals Against Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant” Pro Se, whereby these Motions were Motioned and Filed December 5, 1975. The Jurisdiction of Hawaii's Supreme Court to GRANT THIS APPEAL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE, without Prejudice, resides on Section 602-5 of HAWAII'S RE- VISED STATUTES and/or HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 73, whereby all of **%» parties are residents of the State of Hawaii. /s/ Mrs. Janice Ching Yee MRS. JANICE CHING YEE Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Dated December 22, 1975 Honolulu, Hawaii IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, APPEAL AGAINST THE LOWER COURTS’ JUDGEMENTS FOR DENIAL OF REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF AGAINST CONSPIRACY FOR DEPRIVATION OF INCOME AND LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF PRO SE CIVIL NO. 44240 Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, VS. *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, NO. 5971 ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949 HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969 JUDGE B. VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008 J. KOSHIBA AND OR THE HAWAII BAR ASSOCIATION, NO. 5970 ' BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, AND OR GERRY NAGAHISA ET AL, NO. 5924 STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, NO. 5943 Defendant(s)- Appellee(s). CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 mr me ee ee ee ee ee ace ee er” ee ee eee” ee” ee” ee” ee” ee” ee” eee ee ee ee” MEMORANDUMS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby Motions, in reiteration, for Hawaii's Supreme Court to GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPEL- LANT PROSE’S APPEAL AND/ OR MOTION FOR JUDGE- MENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPEL- LANT PRO SE, according to Rule 12(c) of HAWAII'S RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AND APPELLATE, OR RULz .{b) of HAWAII'S SU- PREME COURT RULES, against Defendants-Appellees for “failure to serve or file a written statement in opposition to a motion” thereby constituting a “waiver of objection” to GRANT: 1) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL OR “MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS” FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE; and 2) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL OR “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” PRO SE; both of which were motioned on December 5, 1975. May aii of the authorities of These Motions be considered as part and parcel of This Memorandum in Support of the Motion for today. Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se hereby asks This Court, and here- by motioned, to Reserve Plaintiff-Appellant’s Rights, according to Chapter 490:10207 and/or Chapter 490:3-606 of HAWAIT'S REVISED STATUTES, for the reservation of all of Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se’s Legal Rights against Defendants-Appel- lees, *Alfred Alphonse Yee et al (case No. 5930) and/or Defen- dants-Appellees, *Edward Chun et al (case No. 5903) for pay- ment due Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se “without prejudice”. May this Reservation apply also to the Consolidation of Ap- peals against the other Conspirators* (named), according to ihe December 5, 1975 “MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS AGAINST CONSPIRACY, ETC”. This Additional request is asked to Grant these additional Motions without prejudice for Edward Chun, et al, and/or Al- fred Alphonse Yee, et al, who were instigators of the aforemen- tioned Conspiracy and must be considered as Conspirators* to pay Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Restitution as monetary claims for damages for suffering suffered; and who hereby asks the Court to consider previous requests, hereby motioned, accord- ing to Chapter 641-4, 641-31, and Chapter 91-14(a) of HA- WAITS REVISED STATUTES for a BILL OF EXCEPTION for an Arrest of Judgement, according to Chapter 641-5 and 64/-33 of these STATUTES for its Judgement to be vacated for case No. 5930 and/ or case No. 5903; OR fora RETRIAL, here- by motioned, according to Rule 59(a)(2) of HAWAII'S RULES OF with permission for an extension of time for these Motions permissable by Hawaii's Supreme Court, according to Chapter 657-20 for Concealment of the “Conspiracy for Prejudiced Per- secution by Malicious Abuse of Judicial Process for Depriva- tion of Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant” Pro Se. AND/OR for an alteration of the Judgement for Reversal of the erroneous Judgement for Defendants-Appellees Yee et al, or Reversal for Defendants-Appellees Chun et al (No. 5903) who were wrong and with permission for an extension of time for these aforementioned Motions, permissable by Hawaii's Su- preme Court, according to Chapter 657-20 of HAWAII'S RE- VISED STATUTES for Concealment of Crimes committed by WDefendants-Appellees as stated. Also, per Rule 60(b-1 and b-2) of HAWAII'S RULES of CIV- IL PROCEDURE AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AND APPELLATE PROCEDURE, can This Court please GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S MOTIONS TO AMEND OPENING BRIEF, hereby Motioned, to include a copy of the lower court’s Judgements, which the clerks of the Supreme Court said need not be included for it was not a “find- ing of fact and conclusions of law, or opinion or decision”, but it is hereby appended if it please the Court, for conformity, as EXHIBITS “H”, “F”, “N”, “V”, “K”, “AN”, and “S”. Can the Court please excuse this inadvertant neglect per Rule 60(b-! and b-6) for “Judgement” was reiterated in the “STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION” for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, whose in- tentions are good and hereby Objects vehemently against pay- ing costs; for Defendants-Appellees must pay costs for Plaintiff- Appellant Pro Se, who never committed adultery, crime, or de- liberate sin, and should not be made to suffer extra expenses and/or deprivation of income and legal rights. IN CONCLUSION, will the Justices for Hawaii's Supreme Court please consider all arguments as well as memoraadums of Law, exhibits, and all authorities as pertinent for pleadings in support of Plaintiff-Appeliant Pro Se’s Appeal and | thank the Justices if This Court can set a precedent and GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL for: 1)Judgement on the Pleadings for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, per Rule 12(c) of HAWAII RULES OF CIVIL PROCE- DURE AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AND AP- PELLATE PROCEDURE, for Restitution as monetary claims for damages for suffering of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, per discretion of Hawaii's Supreme Court Justices, and for custody of the children to Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for a clean true record for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, Janice Ching Yee, and remembering restitution of moneys Plain- tiff-Appellant had once earned and not collected or future income once striven and worked for and not assured of; and Strike the Defendants-Appellees Defamatory Records pertaining to the ex-“guardian ad litem” and or “trustee” decisions, which were defamatory “false arrest” decisions by Vitousek’s lower court, which was wrong. OR: 2)Summary Judgement for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. per Rule S6(a) of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCE- DURE AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL AND AP- PELLATE PROCEDURE, and Rule | 2(c) of these RULES for Judgement on the Pleadings for Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se for Restitution as Monetary Claims for Damages for suffering of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se against Defendants- Appellees’ “Conspiracy for Prejudiced Persecution by Ma- licious Abuse of Judicial Process for Deprivation of Income and Legal Rights for Plaintiff-Appellant” Pro Se. for a clean true record, whereby This Court can GRANT PLAIN- TIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE’S APPEAL to Strike the De- famatory Records of Defendants-Appellees, according to Rule 12(f) of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCE- DURE; and This Court can Order and GRANT THIS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. s Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Dated December 22, 1975 Honolulu, Hawanu Hereby were included copies of ail of the judgements of the lower court as appended in Appendix “A(2)", “B(2)” and “C(2)(a to fy”. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII OCTOBER TERM 1975 JANICE CHING YEE, AFFIDAVIT OF PLAIN- TIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, VS. *ROBERT HOGAN, ET AL, NO. 5971 ROBERT FRANKLIN, NO. 5949 HAROLD NICKELSEN, ET AL, NO. 5969 JUDGE B. VITOUSEK, ET AL, NO. 6008 J. KOSHIBA, AND, OR THE HAWAII BAR AS- SOCIATION, NO. 5970 BETTY ADAMS, ET AL, AND OR GERRY NA- GAHISA, ET AL, NO. 5924 STEPHANIE KOKERNAK, NO. 5943 Detendants-Appellees. CIVIL NO. 44240 CIVIL NO. 44578 CIVIL NO. 44244 CIVIL NO. 45123 CIVIL NO. 44262 CIVIL NO. 44263 CIVIL NO. 44869 Nm me ee ee ee ee ee ee meme” mee” eee” meee met” eee” ere” Smee” ee” Set” eee” AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE lam Mrs. Janice Ching Yee, 3169 Alika Avenue, of Honolulu, Hawaii, (96817) and being duly sworn and under oath, swear and affirm that all of my “unprofessional” Legal Pleas, Com- plaints, Motions, Exhibits, and/or Arguments and/ or Complete Opening Brief, Motions, Exhibits and, or Argument and Mem- orandums of Law are pled in good faith or with good intentions for I never intended perjury and/or frivolity for delay. s' Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of December, 1975. s Anne Osenburg Anne Osenuburg Notary Public, First Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii My commission expires: OCT 15 1978 Hereby was appended EXHIBIT “AXE” and EXHIBIT “AFT” (APPENDIX “E(i)”) December 23, 1975 HONORABLE JUSTICES OF HAWAII'S SUPREME COURT HONOLULU, HAWAII YOUR HONORS, | cannot comprehend the clerks denial of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s Legal Rights for December 22, 1975's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings to be filed, according to Rule 6(b) of HAWAITS SUPREME COURT RULES, for acceptance of Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se’s “Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings” of Plaintiff-Appellant as well as for “Motion to Con- solidate Appeals against Conspiracy, etc.”, filed Dec. 5, 1975. Can Hawaii's Supreme Court Justices please GRANT THIS APPEAL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE, for This Court’s Jurisdiction resides on Chapter 602-5 of HAWAITS REVISED STATUTES and Rule 73(a) of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, whereby, according to Rule /(a)(1) of HAWAITS SUPREME COURT RULES, whereby Appeals are governed by Rule 73(a) of HAWAITS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE for Criminal and Civil cases. Will the Justices please order the clerks to file the enclosed Motion to be considered as pertinent for fast determination of all cases for Piaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. With due respect, s Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Mrs. Janice Ching Yee Plaintitf-Appellant Pro Se 3169 Alika Avenue Honolulu, Ha [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1944%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.