Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
560
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:
561
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1
D. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Purely State Law Claims ............ 13
i
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:
562
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Case Page
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) ............... 26
First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229
(Ct. App. 2013) ...................................................................................................19
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir.1984) .................................27
Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980) ................... 12
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................11,14
ii
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:
563
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593,
124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) ............................................................10
Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.2005) .......................10
Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................12
iii
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:
564
State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Hawai‘i 43, 55, 101 P.3d 652, 664
(App.2004), aff'd, 106 Hawai‘i 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004) ...................................18
State v. French, 77 Hawai‘i 222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 649 (Haw.App.1994) ........... 15
State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai‘i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385 (2013) ..........................18
State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Haw.App.1994)......... 15
State v. Waikiki, 138 Hawai‘i 142, 377 P.3d 1060 (App. 2016) .............................17
United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1993) ..............................16
Wang Foong v. United States, 69 F.2d 681, 682 (9th Cir.1934) .............................16
Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2011) ............. 11
Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136–37, 112 S.Ct. 1076,
117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992) .......................................................................................9
Federal Statutes
iv
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:
565
State Statutes
v
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:
566
Other
LR7.2(d) ...................................................................................................................27
vi
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:
567
Protection (“OCP”), by and through its attorney James F. Evers, respectfully submits
its memorandum in support of its motion for order remanding the instant action back
to state court.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By complaint filed March 3, 2015, the case initially started out as a routine
foreclosure case commenced by U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master
that followed are, for the most part, typical of what happens in foreclosure
proceedings.
Once the parties were served, on April 13, 2016, Plaintiff moved for summary
judgment. The motion was subsequently withdrawn on July 7, 2016, and refiled on
August 23, 2016. On July 7, 2017, order was entered granting summary judgment
in Plaintiff’s favor. On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an order permitting the
underlying property to be sold without open houses, and that motion was granted by
Order entered September 29, 2017. The commissioner thereafter proceeded with the
sale of the property. On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff moved for an order confirming
1
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:
568
On January 25, 2018, OCP moved ex parte and was granted leave to intervene
in the case as a petitioner, and add as Respondents Rose Dradi (“Dradi”), David
On that same date, OCP moved ex parte in petitioning the Court for the issuance of
compliance Hawai‘i’s Mortgage Rescue Fraud Prevention Act, HRS Chapter 480E.
On January 25, 2018, the Court entered its “Order Directing Respondents
Rose Dradi, David Keanu Sai, And Dexter Kaiama To Appear And Show Cause
Why They Should Not Be Found To Have Violated Applicable Consumer Protection
Laws And Notice Of Hearing” (the “Show Cause Order”). See Exhibit A. [All of
the referenced exhibits attached hereto are authenticated by the attached declaration
Respondent Kaiama was personally served with the Show Cause Order on
See Exhibit B.
Respondent Sai was personally served with the Show Cause Order on
See Exhibit C.
2
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:
569
personally served. On March 23. 2018, OCP moved ex parte and was granted
authority to serve Dradi by publication. Notice to Dradi is now being published, and
pursuant to the summons, Dradi has been ordered to appear at a continued show
cause hearing set for June 6, 2018. Timely remand might enable OCP to keep that
date.
foreclosure case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sai, who claims
Kingdom of Hawai‘i means that the State of Hawai‘i does not exist. According to
Sai, there are no state laws, and there are no state courts. Sai claims to know all of
this first-hand because Sai claims to be an acting minister/diplomat for the Kingdom,
What happened to the Defendants has happened all too frequently in Hawai‘i.
Defendants paid Respondents $7,250 in advance fees for their services, the motion
to dismiss was denied faster than one can say “the Kingdom of Hawai‘i continues to
exist,” and when the smoke clears and the dust settles, the Defendants are back in
court for a hearing on the Plaintiff’s motion to confirm the sale and evict the
3
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:
570
meaningful chance they had to save their property, their cash on hand all went to the
Respondents for a bogus foreclosure defense service that conferred no benefit, and
the Respondents’ services forced the Plaintiff to incur attorneys’ fees, which get
added to the Plaintiff’s claim and charged to the Defendants. To remedy the
unlawful conduct, OCP intervened in the state court case because the wrongdoing
4
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:
571
5
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:
572
1
Exhibit D to the attached Declaration of Counsel shows the homeowners’ monthly
mortgage payment during the applicable time period to be $2,146.69, and thus even
legitimate distressed property consultants who sought compensation only after they
had fully performed could not request more than $4,293.38. [The footnote is as it
appears in the Show Cause Order.]
6
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:
573
Respondents were also put on notice of the remedial relief sought by OCP:
In response to the Show Cause Order and in preparation for the Show Cause
Hearing, Respondent Kaiama: (i) on February 20, 2018, filed his written response to
the Show Cause Order, supported by his declaration testimony, (ii) on February 21,
7
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:
574
2018, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (iii) on
February 28, 2018, appeared at the Show Cause Hearing, (iv) on or before March 2,
2018, hired Mr. Sink as his co-counsel, as reflected in the notice of appearance of
co-counsel filed March 2, 2018, (v) on March 7, 2018 filed a supplemental brief in
response to the Show Cause Order, supported by his declaration testimony (vi) on
March 12, 2018, filed a reply brief on his motion to dismiss and on the Show Cause
Order, supported by his declaration testimony, (vii) on March 14, 2018, appeared
with his co-counsel at the continued Show Cause Hearing, (viii) on March 22, 2018,
filed a supplemental reply brief on the Show Cause Order, supported by his
declaration testimony, (ix) on March 23, 2018, filed a notice of taking deposition
upon oral examination, (x) on March 23, 2018, filed a subpoena for the oral
deposition of Gary Okuda, (xi) on March 27, 2018, filed his witness list and exhibit
list, (xii) on March 27, 2018, served his exhibit binder for the evidentiary hearing,
consisting of exhibits KD-1 through KD-15, and (xiii) on March 28, 2018, conducted
In response to the Show Cause Order and in preparation for the Show Cause
had authored addressed to OCP expressing his views on the continued existence of
the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, (ii) on February 26, 2018, filed his joinder to Kaiama’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (iii) on February 28, 2018,
8
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:
575
appeared at the Show Cause Hearing, (iv) on March 5, 2018, filed his memorandum
in support of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supported
by his declaration testimony, (v) on or before March 13, 2018, hired Mr. Laudig as
his counsel, (vi) on March 13, 2018 filed a motion to continue the Show Cause
Hearing to allow for time to file a supplemental brief to be filed by March 27, 2018,
(vii) on March 13, 2018 filed a notice of appearance of counsel, (viii) on March 14,
2018, appeared with his counsel at the continued Show Cause Hearing, and (ix) on
March 27, 2018, filed a supplemental memorandum as to both dismissal and the
When Sai filed his Notice of Removal herein on March 27, 2018, an
evidentiary hearing was scheduled to take place in state court on April 6, 2018, at
case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of
Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir.1988). Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d
391 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136–37, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117
L.Ed.2d 280 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the
9
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:
576
contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519
(9th Cir.1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546,
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time
F.3d 593, 594–95 (9th Cir.1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation
California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.1999). It is the obligation of the district
Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004). Without
jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th
Cir.2005).
Removal of a civil action from state court to the appropriate federal district
court is permissible if the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction
10
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:
577
over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A defendant who invokes the federal court's
v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2011). Since federal district
courts are “of limited jurisdiction,” it is “presumed that a cause of action lies outside
of this limited jurisdiction” until the contrary has been established by the party
asserting jurisdiction. See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770,
2017 WL 6601872, at *2 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Courts construe the removal statute
strictly against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
“Any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.” Id.
III. ARGUMENT
thirty (30) days after the receipt by the Respondents, through service or otherwise,
of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such
The “initial pleading” in this matter is the Show Cause Order. See Exhibit A.
The Show Cause Order was personally served upon Kaiama on February 1, 2018.
11
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:
578
See Exhibit B. The Show Cause Order was personally served upon Sai on February
If there was a legitimate basis for removal (and as is shown below, there was
no basis), Sai had until March 8, 2018 to file his notice of removal. Sai’s notice of
removal filed March 27, 2018 was after his thirty-day right to seek removal had
expired.
The Ninth Circuit has held that the time limits in § 1446(b) are mandatory and
that “‘a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal.’” Smith v. Mylan Inc.,
761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615
F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980)); Palmeira v. CIT Bank, N.A., No. 17-00275 ACK-
As Sai failed to remove the case within thirty days, any right to removal has
been waived, and the untimely attempt at removal is improper and ineffective.
Remand is in order.
that same thirty (30) day period for Sai’s notice of removal. Palmeira v. CIT Bank,
N.A., No. 17-00275 ACK-RLP, 2017 WL 4797515, at *5 (D. Haw. October 24,
2017) (ordering remand after concluding “that consent must be filed within the 30-
12
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:
579
day period for removal to be timely, not within 30 days of when the notice of removal
was filed.”).
As Kaiama failed to consent to removal within thirty days, any right to consent
to removal has been waived, and the untimely attempt to consent to removal is
As shown above, Kaiama took no less than thirteen (13) different actions in
the state court action before the belated removal, and Sai no less than nine (9). Sai’s
remove. A defendant waives its right to remove by proceeding to defend the action
in state court or otherwise invoking the process of the state court. Brown v. Demco,
Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Schell v. Food Mach. Corp., 87 F.2d
385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 679, 57 S.Ct. 670, 81 L.Ed. 883 (1937)).
Mortgage rescue fraud is made unlawful under both federal law (Mortgage
Assistance Relief Service Rule, 12 C.F.R. Part 1015 (“MARS Rule”)) and state law
(HRS Chapter 480E), and if OCP had sought relief under both federal and state law,
the Court would have had supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims. Brady
v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.1995); Maizner v. Dep't of Educ., 405 F.Supp.2d
1225, 1241 (D.Haw.2005). OCP did not seek relief under the MARS Rule, however,
13
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:
580
opting instead to pursue relief solely under state law. The well-pleaded complaint
rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim, able to avoid federal jurisdiction by
relying exclusively on state law. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). “[T]he plaintiff is the ‘master’ of her case, and if she can maintain her claims
on both state and federal grounds, she may ignore the federal question, assert only
state claims, and defeat removal.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th
Cir.1996).
OCP was within its right to proceed only on its state law claims, which defeats
removal. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). In the absence of
claims under federal law, the Court lacks jurisdiction of the state law claims.
Remand is in order.
Sai’s cover sheet to removal indicates that there is no diversity in this case,
and that the alleged basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is a federal question involving
a citizen or subject of a foreign country. See Dkt No.1-2. The Notice of Removal
Interior and Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom.” See Dkt No.1-1, p.3, ¶6. This claim
United States government has officially recognized (i) the legitimacy of a foreign
14
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:
581
capacity of that government, and (iii) the individual is not engaging in conduct
excepted from immunity. See, e.g., Gomes v. ANGOP, Angola Press Agency, 2012
WL 3637453, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Gomes v. ANGOP,
541 Fed.Appx. 141 (2d Cir. 2013) (affording President Jose Eduardo dos Santos
United States formally recognized both the Government of Angola and President
Many attempts have been made in Hawai‘i by people seeking some sort of
immunity from state laws based on Sai’s theory that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i
continues to exist, and as a result, there is no shortage of case law rejecting the notion
that sovereignty excuses compliance with the laws passed by the State of Hawai‘i.
Courts considering the issue have consistently and resoundingly rejected claims
premised on the asserted sovereignty of the laws of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, finding
the federal government or by the State of Hawai‘i. See State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i
219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Haw.App.1994); accord State v. French, 77 Hawai‘i
222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 649 (Haw.App.1994) ( “[P]resently there is no factual (or
15
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:
582
legal) basis for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in
omitted).
The argument has also been rejected by the Ninth Circuit on repeated
occasions. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1993)
(holding that the Hawai‘i district court has jurisdiction over Hawai‘i residents
claiming they are citizens of the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawai‘i); Wang Foong v.
The sovereignty argument has likewise failed in the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii. See Naehu v. Hawai‘i, Civil No. 01–00579
SOM/KSC, slip op. (D.Haw. Sept. 6, 2001) (holding that Hawai‘i traffic laws apply
Uy is of particular note, because there the court rejected Sai’s own supposed
expert opinions:
which the court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Yellen v. U.S., 2014
Although Sai would have the world think of him as an expert, in reality Sai is
merely using his views on sovereignty to exploit people for his own personal gain,
as Sai did with the Defendants in the state court foreclosure matter. Many of the
Waikiki, 138 Hawai‘i 142, 377 P.3d 1060 (App. 2016), where the defendant
brief is an article dated August 4, 2013, written by David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., and
titled `The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the Acting
Waikiki's case or appeal.” Id. at n.2. In upholding the defendant’s conviction, the
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and having given due consideration to the arguments and the
issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case
law, we conclude Waikiki's appeal is without merit.
Id.
Not only are Sai’s arguments repeatedly rejected by the courts, they are found
to be without merit. See, e.g., Algal Partners, L..P. v. Santos, No. CIV. 13-00562
LEK, 2014 WL 1653084, at *2 (D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2014) (noting first that “Defendant
argues, by citing lengthy materials authored by David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., that ‘the
occupation by the United States[,]’” and further noting “courts have rejected these
same arguments made by Dr. Sai in other cases[,]” citing Sai v. Clinton, 778
18
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:
585
F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.), aff'd sub nom. Sai v. Obama, No. 11–5142, 2011 WL
4917030 (D.C.Cir. Sept. 26, 2011); First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452,
303 P.3d 1229 (Ct. App. 2013) (finding upon de novo review the appeal to be
“without merit,” noting “[o]ur appellate courts have repeatedly held that claims
involving the applicability of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i laws are without merit.”);
2534348, at *3 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) (dismissing a complaint “as legally
frivolous and failing to confer jurisdiction on this court” where the allegations were
“based on the assertion that Hawai‘i is not a state of the United States.”); Kupihea
July 10, 2009) (dismissing as “patently frivolous” a complaint based on the plaintff’s
Kingdom of Hawai‘i.”).
Because the United States government does not officially recognize the
continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, Sai’s claim for diplomatic immunity
– and removal to federal court – necessarily fails. LaSalle Bank Natl. Assoc. v.
19
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:
586
The fact that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i is not recognized by the United States
spares the Court from having to consider the ludicrous assertions made to this Court
that Sai is the “Minister of the Interior and Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom” and
Kaiama is the Kingdom’s acting attorney general. Sai’s claim for diplomatic
immunity must be denied. It bears noting, however, that Sai’s claim to the Kingdom
but one of “[m]ore than 10 factions [that] currently claim to be the legitimate
Having been interviewed for and quoted in the article, Sai’s claim is described
create a military government that will enforce Hawaiian kingdom laws, Sai is
described as “living a reality that’s not necessarily recognized by the rest of the
world.” See Exhibit D, at p.1. That is precisely why remand is in order. Diplomatic
recognized by the rest of the world.” Diplomatic immunity turns on whether the
United States recognizes the foreign government and an individual serving as a duly
considered by some to be both a scam and a fraud, “[w]hen not even advocates of
the kingdom defense can cite a single case in which a homeowner ultimately
prevailed.” Rob Perez, “Kingdom Still In Place Courts Told,” Honolulu Star-
Advertiser, January 13, 2014. See Exhibit E. There were no victories as of 2014,
and there have been none since. This is a con, and Respondents must be stopped
before more homeowners throw their money away only to end up like the
Defendants, having to attend a hearing in fear the court will confirm the sale of
See Exhibit F, p.2. Sai contracted with Defendants on April 26, 2015. See Exhibit
G. Sai’s contract requires the Defendants to pay him in advance, which is prohibited
by law (HRS § 480E-10(a)(9)) and which constitutes a felony (HRS § 480E-12). Sai
did receive the payments from the Defendants and deposited them into his personal
bank account. See Exhibit H. Sai’s monthly bank statements confirm his having
Sai’s illegal conduct carries both civil and criminal ramifications, and that
fact is of critical importance because assuming Sai could do the impossible and make
21
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:
588
a case that the United States officially recognizes both the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and
Sai’s role as authorized representative of the Kingdom, Sai’s plea for immunity
would nevertheless fail because the United States does not offer immunity to official
diplomats acting outside their official capacity to engage in fraud for their own
personal gain.
Sai claims diplomatic immunity under 22 U.S.C. § 254d. See Dkt No. 1-1,
p.168. The cited authority does not serve to give Sai immunity for his role in the
The money paid by the Defendants was deposited by Sai into his personal
bank account. See Exhibit H (deposit slips made out to deposit the Defendants’
checks into Sai’s personal account, along with the Defendants’ checks) and Exhibit
I (monthly statements showing the Defendants’ checks were deposited into Sai’s
personal account). At all times Sai was acting for his own personal gain, not in some
personal profit. VCDR, Article 42. Where a diplomat does engage in professional
22
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:
589
* * * * *
protection laws, and deposited those monies into his personal account. Under state
law, Sai’s conduct constitutes a felony (see HRS §§ 480E-10(a)(9) and 480E-12),
and Sai’s criminal wrongdoing has been referred to the proper criminal authorities
for investigation. In the meantime, OCP intends to pursue its civil remedies,
It might also be noted that in the United States and elsewhere, the attainment
(both locally and abroad) in the individuals selected to serve. Candidates are
representing the United States, for example, must be found suitable by the Suitability
23
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:
590
Review Panel. Sai’s criminal record for first degree theft (see Exhibit J), coupled
with Sai’s active involvement mortgage rescue fraud now being investigated by the
criminal authorities, constituting many more felonies, will make him ineligible to
serve in a representative capacity should the day even come when the United States
Removal was not done in accordance with Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P, and
accordingly, OCP respectfully requests that the Court so find. Kaiama’s consent to
removal should similarly be found to have been done in violation of Rule 11.
The procedure for removal requires that the notice of removal be “signed
An attorney licensed to practice law in Hawai‘i cannot make a claim that the
Kingdom of Hawai‘i continues to exist, and that the State of Hawai‘i does not exist,
and satisfy Rule 11. There is no basis for anyone to believe Sai is entitled to
diplomatic immunity under the circumstances of this case, when the Respondents
illegally collected from the Defendants $7,250 for a motion to dismiss (based on the
existence of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i) which was denied. When OCP sought to have
the Respondents take accountability for their actions, Sai responded to OCP with a
24
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:
591
letter claiming the presiding state court judge was to blame, accusing the judge of
See Exhibit K.
Sai’s irrational and fanatical criticism of the state court judge is a view shared
by Kaiama, for which Kaiama was sanctioned by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
See Exhibit L.
As removal was not sought in accordance with Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P, the
Court should so find, in part to enable the case to be remanded without hearing and
further delay, and in part so that OCP has some means to recoup the costs of
Respondent Dradi in the event jurisdiction over the case is not returned to the state
court in time for the hearing now scheduled for June 6, 2018.
Removal of this action was clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable and without
legal foundation, and brought for the improper purpose of avoiding the evidentiary
hearing set for April 6, 2018. At OCP’s request, Sai and Kaiama were ordered to
25
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:
592
appear for the hearing, and both Sai and Kaiama were on OCP’s witness list to be
Respondents bought themselves some time, but the case should be remanded as
quickly as possible, so that OCP can resume its effort to permanently enjoin
presiding over a foreclosure case has yet to be convinced that the case must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the continued existence
of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, and yet Sai keeps offering his services and illegally
This case should not remain in federal court for a second longer. The Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Where removal was made in the absence
of any claim conferring subject matter jurisdiction on the court, the matter may be
dismissed sua sponte without delay. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543, 94 S.Ct.
1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack
devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the
District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939
26
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:
593
(1946) (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th
Cir.1984) (holding that even “[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous' does
not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction ... and may be dismissed sua sponte
respectfully requests that the Court find this matter suitable for disposition without
a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, and proceed to enter its Findings and
Court.
27
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:
594
compliance with LR 7.5(a), and does not contain more than 9,000 words, in
28