PINKERTON VS. COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI PROSECUTORS OFFICE AND MARC E.
GUYOT
|
||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
Basis for a 42 U.S.C 1983,
1985 claim of Kauai Malicious Prosecution
http://www.kpinkerton.com/08-00222/11-1.p
[Paragraph 1, page 1]
"Statement of the Case" At stake in this case are the Federal Questions
raised concerning the Defendants penal and ethical responsibility to
disclose exculpatory evidence found on the Plaintiffs website and sanctions
for those who have maliciously interfered with the Civil Rights of the
Plaintiff. The complaint seeks declaratory relief against Defendants.
[Paragraph 1, page 1]
[Paragraphs 5-6 on pages 2,3]
II. Factual Background Krstafer Pinkerton Becomes a Defendant: In this case,
the factual circumstances are largely uncontroverted.
Pinkerton’s refusal to accept
the terms of the Global Plea Offer led Guyot to seek an Indictment prior to
Pinkertons Evidentiary Hearing for the same incident as the charges in the
Indictment.
The Defense neglected to
disclose in their Statement of Facts in the Memorandum in Support of Motion
filed June 6, 2008, that the multiple events leading to Plaintiffs Complaint
that began on October 23, 2005 was dismissed. It should be correctly noted
that the Harassment Charges were never charged against the Plaintiff and
despite the absence of witnesses against Pinkerton, Kauai Prosecutors
proceeded to prosecute Pinkerton on an Impersonating charge, which was
ultimately Dismissed Without Prejudice on the day of his trial.
The defense neglects to address
facts stated in the Complaint regarding Pinkertons second arrest for
Terroristic Threatening and Intimidating a Witness, lodged against him by
Kauai Police Officer Gilbert Asuncion, whom Pinkerton had filed a complaint
against for the events surrounding Pinkertons initial arrest for allegedly
Impersonating a Police officer and 2 counts of Harassment.
The two Felony charges were
reduced to a single harassment charge, which was ultimately dismissed With
Prejudice due to prosecutorial misconduct in the interference of a court
ordered Mental Examination, suppressing the issue of penal liability, which
ultimately caused two separate criminal cases against Pinkerton to be
Dismissed With Prejudice." [Paragraphs 5-6 on pages 2,3] ******************************
[Page 6,7] Plaintiffs Complaint
details how Defendant Guyot played an active role the second, third and
fourth arrest. Pinkerton’s refusal to accept the terms led Guyot to seek an
Indictment to prevent evidence favorable to Pinkerton from being presented
by at his evidentiary hearing. Guyots Interference with the court order only
validates the Plaintiffs claims. The egregious acts in the cases that were
lodged against Pinkerton by members of the Kauai Police Department were
continued by the
The Global Plea Offer was
offered in hopes of getting Pinkerton out of the County Of Kauai’s hair and
to avoid potential litigation from the tortuous actions on behalf of the
County of Kauai regarding the Kauai Police Departments treatment of
Pinkerton and moving these potentially embarrassing cases off the courts
docket which would of course conceal the alleged Civil Rights Violations
committed against Pinkerton by members of the Kauai Police Department during
the 6 month arrest campaign against Pinkerton.
Prosecutor Guyots offer to
dismiss a colorable criminal action in exchange for a release from civil
liability is tantamount to a threat to continue the action if Pinkerton
would not give such a release. There is an imbalance of power between the
prosecution and the Defendant and that power was abused by the Defendants in
this case. See, e.g., People v. Choynski (1892) 95
[Pages 9,10,11]: "Guyots‘
misconduct was discovered with no sanctions for his interference with the
court order. He was not present in court on February 27, 2007 when Judge
Watanabe informed the standing Prosecutor that she discovered that Guyot
told the doctor for the mental exam that the court order was flawed and to
disregard the penal liability of the exam. She later concluded regarding
Guyots egregious behavior that “this court finds this to be an interference
with a court order.”
Prosecutors must disclose
obviously exculpatory evidence even absent a request from the defendant, and
when Guyot interfered with a court order in an attempt to prevent the court
ordered penal liability exam from potentially exonerating Pinkerton, and to
suppress the question of Pinkertons liability from a court ordered mental
examination is equivalent to the suppression of evidence, along with
suppressing exculpatory evidence found on Pinkertons website, are grounds
that disqualify him for immunity. See Brady v. Maryland373
Prosecutor Guyot and members of
the
Once again, no sanctions were
ever brought against the Prosecutors Office or Guyot for with violating Rule
3.8(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 3.8. of the Hawaii Rules
of Professional Conduct: Performing the duty of the public prosecutor or
other government lawyer. A public prosecutor or other government lawyer
shall:
(a) not institute or cause to
be instituted criminal charges when [the prosecutor or government lawyer]
knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause;
and b) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal. [emphasis added]" [Pages 9,10,11]
****************************** Several Kauai police officers and Kauai Prosecutors have committed perjury, falsified police reports, and false charges in retaliation to the complaints I have filed against Kauai Police Officers and exercising my right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. When Officer Gilbert V. Asuncion enlisted the help of fellow officers to cover up his assault on me at a school function, they were also caught Their plea offer is proof that evidence against the Kauai Police Department is found on this website.
And yet our county leaders do nothing....... Our island has the most complaints against officers than any other island in the State of Hawaii. If you file complaints against Kauai police officers, the complaints will not be sustained because it is too costly for the County of Kauai to accept liability by admitting Kauai Police Officers have violated civil rights. See Police Commission Failure . You cannot ignore the evidence. “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”
|
||||||
