"All counsel are officers of the court and subject to serious professional and personal sanctions for filing unfounded affidavits with the court."

AS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO BELOW, EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MARC E. GUYOT HAS ABUSED HIS PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, FILED FALSE STATEMENTS IN HIS AFFIDAVITS, AND HAS SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE.

HIS INTEGRITY IS IN QUESTION AND ADDRESSED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE KATHLEEN WATANABE FOR CLAIMING THE JUDGES COURT ORDER WAS FLAWED AND INTERFERING WITH THE COURT ORDER.  THIS IS ALSO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.

THIS IS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.  HIS LATEST MALFEASANCES  CAN ALSO BE SHOWN IN THE 10 MINUTE CLIP BELOW.

THE COURT TRANSCRIPT VIDEOS ON THIS PAGE WILL SHED LIGHT INTO HOW HARD HE HAS FOUGHT TO TRY AND GAIN A CONVICTION AND USE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AS A TOOL TO ACCOMPLISH HIS OBJECTIVE.

Review these court transcripts of Pinkerton and Prosecutor Marc E. Guyot.

05/25/06

I was issued, upon request of the Prosecutor, Marc E.  Guyot, that the Honorable Trudy Senda give me a warning of violation of Hawaii Supreme Court Rule 5.1 . 

Why? Because the prosecution had reviewed many audio files of which one was recorded in the courthouse.  Kauai Police Officer Gilbert Asuncions' statement contradicts what his written report states. Mention of this Supreme Court Rule also comes out in the 8/23/06 Hearing.

This warning is a willful act of acknowledging that the Prosecution has in fact reviewed the audio files posted on this site, contradicting Prosecutor Marc E. Guyots' sworn affidavit filed July 19, 2006, the details found on page 2, section 2(a)  in this PDF file.

Certified Log file analysis can be reviewed and the results of those log files further substantiates that the County of Kauai and the Courts of Hawaii have accessed these items of evidence.  Additionally, why would the plea offer state the removal of this website? 

If then, the allegations of rampant police and prosecutorial misconduct I am bringing to light are unfounded, take the appropriate steps to bring me before the courts in a Civil proceeding.

07/12/06
 

After a phone call from First Deputy Richard Minatoya on June 23, 2006 urging me to proceed PRO SE and then they will "deal with" me regarding the plea offer that they are in receipt of.

Now Deputy Prosecutor Marc E. Guyot now says that there is no plea offer to discuss.

My testimony challenges the merits of the arrest.  I inform the court that exculpatory evidence has been reviewed on my website.

Testimony regarding the audio file mentioned above. 

This is a very interesting court proceeding. 

08/21/06
Grand Jury Indictment

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MARC E. GUYOT GOES BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND MAKES SEVERAL MISTAKES AS SEEN HERE:

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MARC E. GUYOT  TRIES TO LIMIT QUESTIONS TO THE STATES WITNESS.
 

"The ABA Standards state that a prosecutor shall not “knowingly fail to disclose to the grand jury evidence which tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense."

"A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence because he or she believes it will damage the prosecution’s case or aid the accused.” I am talking about the prosecution reviewing my website and have downloaded this mp3 audio file that they are in possession of when they listened to it, hence they have downloaded it to their hard drive's.

BELOW IS A MINI CLIP OF AN ATTEMPT  BY GUYOT TO WITHHOLD QUESTIONING OF ONE OF THE OFFICERS:

08/23/06

Hearing on Motions to Dismiss.

Prior to this hearing, on July 19, 2006, I had filed several Motions To Dismiss and of course was opposed by Prosecuting Attorney Marc E. Guyot.  Early in the proceedings, I motion to withdraw my motions to dismiss because I do not want the retaliation on behalf of the prosecution.  How true that would turn out to be...

These video files are very lengthy.  If you wish to review only the details of which I am claiming, then scroll down to the next set of video file clips.

Download Prosecuting Attorney Marc E. Guyots' perjured  statements filed in Motion of Opposition to Motions To Dismiss, filed July 26, 2006. Pay specific attention to page 2, section 2(a) and compare with his court room testimony from the transcript of 7/12/06.  (clip below - link)

THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF A PROSECUTOR DEFLECTING HIS ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY.

HIS PERJURED TESTIMONY VERIFIES MY CLAIM OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. 

"IF HE WANTS TO BE CHARGED WITH THE FELONIES, (laugh), WE CAN DO THAT"
Richard K. Minatoya

Note: Guyot sitting next to Mnatoya.

IN THE JANUARY 10, 2006 ARRAIGNMENT, MARC E. GUYOT IS SITTING TO THE RIGHT OF MINATOYA, THUS PROVING HE HAD HEARD FIRST HAND WHAT WAS SAID.  PROSECUTOR MINATOYAS' STATEMENT REGARDING REINSTATING TWO FELONIES CAN BE REVIEWED IN THE CLIP BELOW:

PROSECUTOR MARC GUYOT PERJURES HIMSELF BY STATING THAT PROSECUTOR MINATOYAS' STATEMENT WAS LEFT HANGING WHEN IN FACT IT WAS NOT.

My argument is this; Once a webpage downloads onto someone's computer, they are legally in possession of the data. Just like in child porn cases.

Once in possession of the data that negates my guilt, the prosecution reviewed the files, hence the Supreme Court Rule of 5.1 back in March 25, 2006, and he has a moral obligation to disclose it regardless of HRPP Rule 16 or HRPP Rule 16.1 or my lack of asking for it specifically.

Don't people get in trouble for looking at child porn?  Sure, once they download it, they are in possession of it.  According to Guyot, they do not have any evidence from my website that negates my guilt, yet their plea offer highly suggests that kpinkerton.com has evidence, thus substantiating my claim of PROSECUTORIAL & POLICE MISCONDUCT. 

NOVEMBER 20, 2006

It is usually the defense attorney who motions the court to have the defendant mentally examined but in court November 20, 2006, it is the prosecuting attorney Marc E. Guyot who motions the court for this procedure.

Download the filed Affidavits and  Motions for Mental Evaluation in PDF. 

Why did Prosecutor Marc Guyot motion for this? In the name of justice? Hardly...
My thought is that he wants me off my computer, away from the website that I own and operate. This website is critical of Kauai police and prosecutors. Their own plea offer draws suspicious motive to show an over abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

It appears that he is LEGALLY stooping so low as to locate any and all medical and mental health records and use them to have "justification" to have me committed to a psych ward. What for? To keep me medicated? To give me a frontal lobotomy?  This is NOT Connecticut.

To facilitate in his pursuit to put me away, out of his hair, he has researched and found there is a way for him to accomplish this.
 

Well, well, well, Mr. Marc E. Guyot, straight out of law school, has obstructed justice and receives a scolding from the judge - even though he is not even present....

Closing Arguments: Case Dismissed With Prejudice!

Abusing ones prosecutorial discretion in order to win a case is treasonous to the U.S. Constitution.

Deliberately seeking to commit someone in order to prevent the truth from coming out draws a similar relation to that of Nazi Germany.

Prosecutor Marc Guyot, If you promise not to object to the witnesses or evidence I will present to a jury, I will gladly fire my attorney and take you on myself. See you in court?

Read below the Hawaii State Law regarding
INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION:

Hawaii Revised Statutes §334-60.2

Involuntary hospitalization criteria.

A person may be committed to a psychiatric facility for involuntary hospitalization, if the court finds:
(1) That the person is mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse;
(2) That the person is imminently dangerous to self or others, is gravely disabled or is obviously ill; and
(3) That the person is in need of care or treatment, or both, and there is no suitable alternative available through existing facilities and programs which would be less restrictive than hospitalization. [L 1984, c 188, pt of §3; am L 1985, c 75, §2; am L 1986, c 335, §4]

Hawaii Revised Statutes §704-404

Examination of defendant with respect to physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. (1) Whenever the defendant has filed a notice of intention to rely on the defense of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding responsibility, or there is reason to doubt the defendant's fitness to proceed, or reason to believe that the physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect of the defendant will or has become an issue in the case, the court may immediately suspend all further proceedings in the prosecution. If a trial jury has been empanelled, it shall be discharged or retained at the discretion of the court. The discharge of the trial jury shall not be a bar to further prosecution.

(2) Upon suspension of further proceedings in the prosecution, the court shall appoint three qualified examiners in felony cases and one qualified examiner in nonfelony cases to examine and report upon the physical and mental condition of the defendant. In felony cases the court shall appoint at least one psychiatrist and at least one licensed psychologist. The third member may be a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or qualified physician. One of the three shall be a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist designated by the director of health from within the department of health. In nonfelony cases the court may appoint either a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist. All examiners shall be appointed from a list of certified examiners as determined by the department of health. The court, in appropriate circumstances, may appoint an additional examiner or examiners. The examination may be conducted on an out-patient basis or, in the court's discretion, when necessary the court may order the defendant to be committed to a hospital or other suitable facility for the purpose of the examination for a period not exceeding thirty days, or such longer period as the court determines to be necessary for the purpose. The court may direct that one or more qualified physicians or psychologists retained by the defendant be permitted to witness the examination. As used in this section, the term "licensed psychologist" includes psychologists exempted from licensure by section 465-3(a)(3).

(3) An examination performed under this section may employ any method that is accepted by the professions of medicine or psychology for the examination of those alleged to be affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect; provided that each examiner shall form and render diagnoses and opinions upon the physical and mental condition of the defendant independently from the other examiners, and the examiners, upon approval of the court, may secure the services of clinical psychologists and other medical or paramedical specialists to assist in the examination and diagnosis.

(4) The report of the examination shall include the following:

(a) A description of the nature of the examination;

(b) A diagnosis of the physical or mental condition of the defendant;

(c) An opinion as to the defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings against the defendant and to assist in the defendant's own defense;

(d) An opinion as to the extent, if any, to which the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law was impaired at the time of the conduct alleged;

(e) When directed by the court, an opinion as to the capacity of the defendant to have a particular state of mind that is required to establish an element of the offense charged; and

(f) Where more than one examiner is appointed, a statement that the diagnosis and opinion rendered were arrived at independently of any other examiner, unless there is a showing to the court of a clear need for communication between or among the examiners for clarification. A description of the communication shall be included in the report. After all reports are submitted to the court, examiners may confer without restriction.

(5) If the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to participate therein, the report shall so state and shall include, if possible, an opinion as to whether such unwillingness of the defendant was the result of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect.

(6) Three copies of the report of the examination, including any supporting documents, shall be filed with the clerk of the court, who shall cause copies to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant.

(7) Any examiner shall be permitted to make a separate explanation reasonably serving to clarify the examiner's diagnosis or opinion.

(8) The court shall obtain all existing, medical, mental health, social, police, and juvenile records, including those expunged, and other pertinent records in the custody of public agencies, notwithstanding any other statutes, and make such records available for inspection by the examiners.

(9) The compensation of persons making or assisting in the examination, other than those retained by the nonindigent defendant, who are not undertaking the examination upon designation by the director of health as part of their normal duties as employees of the State or a county, shall be paid by the State. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 136, §4(b); am L 1974, c 54, §1; am L 1979, c 3, §1 and c 105, §64; am L 1983, c 172, §1; am L 1987, c 145, §1; am L 1988, c 305, §5; am L 1992, c 88, §1; gen ch 1993; am L 1997, c 306, §1; am L 2006, c 230, §6]