HAWIIAN PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

The study of criminal appeals from 1970 to the present revealed 80 Hawaii cases in which defendants alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct. In 17, judges ruled the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant and reversed or remanded the conviction sentence or indictment. In one, dissenting judges thought the prosecutor’s conduct prejudiced the defendant.

Thirteen out of the 17 reversals involved improper arguments or questions during the trial, two involved pre-trial tactics, one involved withholding evidence from the defense and one involved discrimination in jury selection.

In October 1999, the state Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s sexual assault conviction because Honolulu prosecutor Victor Bakke tried to appeal to racial prejudices of the jury. The court ruled that Bakke’s conduct was intentional and barred retrial of the defendant.

“There was one thing [that defense counsel mentioned] about, you know, it was the parents who wanted the conviction and somehow she was coached,” Bakke told the jury. “This is every mother's nightmare. Leave your daughter for an hour and a half, and you walk back in, and here's some black military guy on top of your daughter."

The state Supreme Court ruled Bakke’s arguments to the jury were “contrived to stimulate racial prejudice” and “represent a brazen attempt to subvert a criminal defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury.” The court wrote that this was a “particularly egregious” form of prosecutorial misconduct.

Bakke did not respond to requests for comment.

Photos of Oklahoma Corrupt Rulings Judges

The three judges named and pictured below, wrongfully accepted reassignment to preside over the prior legal actions while knowing of their conflict of interests stemming from their economic, blood ties and personal interests with the high profile parties involved therein. As the direct result of their conflict of interests, these state and federal judges failed to uphold their sworn duty to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution and closed their eyes to our counsel's and the bank's insider, lawyer's fraud, conspiracy obstruction of lawful administration of justice.
Thus, the truth of our legal defense and claims, were never adjudicated in judge Blevins' court, or in the legal actions that followed. This was the direct result of our counsel and the bank's "Intrinsic fraud," and are not enforceable even by a holder in due course, U.S.C. Section 305(2)(c).

Judge James B. Blevins,

accepted reassignment to preside over the lawsuit in foreclosure by the First National Bank of Bethany, Oklahoma, (bank) case No.
CJ-85-0095. Judge Blevins failed to find the truth outlined in the
Photos of Lawyers, And Their Corrupt Legal Actions page herein, showing the bank’s allegations that we had defaulted on its note and mortgage were patently untrue. The judge acted in concert in our counsel's obvious deceptive legal actions arising in their conflicts of interests with parties involved in our case.

Judge Blevins failed to assert Oklahoma state statute to remand the case to be heard in a trial by jury on the merits. Allowed our first attorney, Alan Reaves, to file a one page shammed answer on our behalf, permitted Reaves to secretly dismiss our counterclaim (in violation of Oklahoma statute), seeking in excess of $2,000,000.00 in damages, which he had filed just the day before. He then granted bank's motion for summary judgement on a false sworn foreclosure, and against our counterclaim. We filed an appeal and American Inn's CH-11 bankruptcy petition. All the while, all the lawyers, the bank, and our counsel, were refusing to close the remortgage commitment issued by the second lender, Tinker Investment and Mortgage Corp., at a $19,500 consideration.

Judge Blevins failed to bring out the true facts in which Durbin, our second lawyer, recommended by the US Attorney, had deceived us from the start as outlined in the photos of lawyers page

Our third attorney, Charles Rouse, filed our four-count lawsuit charging fraud, bank's fraud, etc, and obtained a temporary restraining order, and a hearing was set for June 7, 1985.
At the TRO hearing, on one count only, Judge Blevins permitted Pierce and co-counsel Joel Carson, to enter into evidence statements (supporting their fraudulent defense) as to what the witnesses seated in the court room would say if called to testify under oath. stopped me from stating certain truths known to us at that time. subjected me to yes or no answers to trick- questions meant to uphold the bank's fraudulent defense, knowing that Durbin was still our counsel of record, the judge stated that Durbin needn't swear his oath, and stated that, "you are an officer of the court", then allowed Durbin to cover-up/suppress evidence vital to our lawsuit and court stay of the bank's Sheriffs Sale of our American Inn Judge Blevins corruptly stated the hearing was a trial on the merits, and granted the bank summary judgment dismissing all four counts of our lawsuit and ended the Temporary Restraining Order. The transcript of that hearing is in our possession.



Judge Richard Bohanon

We sought protection from the bank's corrupt legal actions and Sheriff's
sale of our American Inn under CH-11, U. S. Bankruptcy Code. The case was
initially assigned to judge Berry. Judge Bohanon then took re-assignment
of the case in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning
conflicts of interest, arising in the fact that he took his seat on the federal bench
from the main
co-conspirator's law firm and was receiving payments for stock sold back to
that law firm, while his father, Luther Bohanon, was a Senior Judge in that
U.S. District Court in violation of 458 F.R.C.P. Judge Richard Bohanon
was informed of the above facts and stated in his finding of fact and
conclusion of law, "this is more like a war than a bankruptcy". He then
acted in concert with the bankers and lawyers whose fraud drove our
American Inn into bankruptcy court in the first place by appointing Durbin and Pierce to
positions in full control of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Knowing that Durbin and Pierce were to be named as defendants in the
trustee's adversary action, Bohanon named Durbin (a potential
defendant for his state court fraud against us and whose fee was contested)
to be Chairman of the Unsecured Creditor Committee of the case. The judge appointed as Trustee,
lawyer Michael Rolinaitis and his
wife, both of whom had defaulted loans at the bank whose fraud caused
the bankruptcy. Michael Rolinaitis who also had an attorney-client duty to our
American Inn, was appointed Trustee and Mrs. Rolinaitis was appoined
accountant. Judge Bohanan, also appointed Peter Pierce, (whose bank
was an appellee in American Inn's lawsuit on appeal and himself chose in
action as a main conspirator), was appointed attorney for the Trustee to
prosecute an Adversary action against us-falsely alleging fraudulent
transfers and breach of fiduciary duties while debtor in possession.

The judge allowed three law firms to undertake American Inn's bankruptcy
and conspire with the trustees and the bank's lawyer to defeat American
Inn's appeal and block American Inn's reorganization. He allowed the bank
to evade being brought to justice and allowed the bank's lawyer to prosecute
a sham adversary suit against us. Judge Bohanon, in his response to our
written request to protect our rights, wrote, in part: "You may not expect the
court will notify or advise you of any violation of any rights you may have.
It is the function of this court to hear and determine disputes. If you wish to
seek advise concerning your rights you should retain a competent attorney or
otherwise inform yourselves."

Judge Bohanon knew about, and allowed, our lawyer who had filed a motion
to withdraw in accord with an agreement to be our witness in the adversary
suit pursuant to his previously filed witness affidavit. He had agreed to attest
to the bank's and our second lawyer's fraund in the state court case, admitting that
they conspired in driving American Inn into bankruptcy.

Minutes after judge Bohanon granted the above motion, he awarded the bank
summary judgment (by default) on the bank lawyer's false, perjured
statement that we had failed to complete discovery, overturned the automatic
stay and converted the CH-11 to CH-7.


Judge Bohanon allowed R.W. Abbott to abandon his undertaking of
the American Inn bankruptcy, and keep $3,200.00 of the unearned fee paid on his agreement to do a
"cram down" against the bank, then hired him to draft and send
the judgments by U.S. Mail to our home in Texas!

Judge Bohanon, on our motion filed pro-se, discharged Rolinaitis and
appointed L. Win Holbrook successor Trustee in the case. On our complaint,
verbally, and by letter of Jan. 24, 1987, Holbrook obtained leave in the
Oklahoma Supreme Court for rehearing American Inn's Appeal in the
64, 709 case which was violated by the bank's lawyer, acting as an attorney
for his appellee bank, and the trustee, appellant. But Holbrook too succumbed
to the political influence, and abandoned rehearing the appeal.




Judge Layn Phillips
Judge Phillips violated our rights by fraudulently accepting re-assignment to
our case knowing his wife was associated with the Defendant's main
co-conspirator and chose in action, Alan Durbin. He acted in concert with
lawyers Floyd Taylor and Susan Manchester and Craig Dodd, to deprive us
of a trial by jury to protect his wife's law firm from paying damages. He
ignored even the watered down allegations of the Bank and attorney fraud
shown in their sham Petition and Amended Petition. Judge Phillips ignored
our objections and showing of the true facts that gave rise to our case and
allowed the lawyers to abandon us in the pattern set by their predecessors in
the State and U.S, Bankruptcy Court actions under blatantly false pretenses
and to keep (unearned) $10, 000.00 paid on their contingency fee agreements.
He had us travel (8 hours each way) to the Court in Okla. City, only to learn
he had continued the hearing. Judge Phillips committed me to (5 days) in
the OK Co. Jail on Magistrate Cauthron's Contempt of Court complaint,
involving my outburst that the bank's and pierce's statements, made at a hearing on assets, were false,
which the Magistrate had stated were irrelevant. The judge released me the next day, after
our counsel showed the Judge the document (which our counsel had withheld) at the hearing.



  ¶ 11:38 PM