Court Video Transcripts

01/10/06

The charges of Terroristic Threatening and Intimidating a Witness were dropped to a single count of harassment. 

I wanted the original felony  charges reinstated so that a jury would see and hear the evidence. 

Prosecuting Attorney Richard Minatoya makes Improper Comments. First Deputy Prosecutor threatens to have the charges reinstated after I contest the arrest was a false arrest.

"IF HE WANTS TO BE CHARGED WITH THE FELONIES, (laugh), WE CAN DO THAT" Richard K. Minatoya (2min 15seconds into transcript)

The Honorable Judge Matsunaga comments about the $10,000.00 bail for the charge of Harassment, which is typically only $50.00.

NOTE: Prosecuting Attorney Marc E. Guyot is sitting to the right of Minatoya.

05/25/06  and still no TRIAL...

 

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 

This warning is an act of acknowledgement that the Prosecution has reviewed the audio files posted on this site.  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. 

05/31/06  and still no TRIAL...

William A. Harrison withdraws and blames his lack of preparation on his secretary.  He also slides in a Motion to Continue without explaining the details of HRPP Rule 48.

07/12/06  and still no TRIAL...
 

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   and still no TRIAL...
Grand Jury Indictment

DISCREPANCIES:

1. OFFICER VINZANT SAYS SGT. BALBARINO IS STILL ON DUTY.
    

2. SGT. VICKY FONOIMOANA SAYS THAT BALBARINO IS OFF DUTY.
    

3. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TRIES TO LIMIT QUESTIONS TO THE STATES WITNESS.
    

4. JUROR CATCHES THE DISCREPANCIES: INFORMS SGT. VICKY FONOIMOANA THAT SHE SAID THAT BANQUEL STOPPED PINKERTON ON THE KOLOA BYPASS.
    

5. OFFICER BANQUEL STATED THAT HE PULLED BEHIND ME BECAUSE OF AN ANONYMOUS CALL.
    

6. OFFICER FONOIMOANA STATES THAT MY TRUCK WAS PARKED ON THE ROADSIDE.
    

7. OFFICER BANQUEL STATED THAT TO HIM MY TRUCK WAS CRASHED INTO THE BUSHES.

08/23/06   NOT TO BE MISSED:

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. 

Download Prosecuting Attorney Marc E. Guyots' Motion of Opposition to Motions Filed, filed July 26, 2006. Pay specific attention to page 2, section 2(a) and compare with his court room testimony from 7/12/06 (above)

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

Early in the proceedings, I motion to withdraw my motions to dismiss because I do not want the retaliation.  How true that would turn out to be...  LITTLE DID I KNOW THAT I WAS TO BE ARRESTED RIGHT AFTER THIS PROCEEDING, WAS RELEASED, THEN PHYSICALLY ARRESTED & BOOKED THE FOLLOWING DAY.

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

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.

He tries to keep the focus on the motions I filed and not the technicality that I have raised here.

Recall it is PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MARC E. GUYOTS' signature on the Plea Offer. 

Incidentally, I was grabbed by Kauai Sherriff's serving a Bench Warrant following the indictment returned 2 days earlier.  Their intent was to arrest me and and I told them I was already arrested for the charges they were trying to re-arrest me for.  I asked Dena Renti Cruz to "do something".

The Sherriff went to talk to someone in the interior of the court and came back and said that they could arrest me the following day, 8/24/06 when I appear for the Evidentiary Hearing. 

And the honorable Trudy Senda tells me during this proceeding that the prosecution does not retaliate?  Hogwash!

UPDATE: AS OF DECEMBER 4, 2006, THE HONORABLE TRUDY SENDA HAS YET TO RULE ON TWO OUTSTANDING MOTIONS FROM THIS

10/11/06  and still no TRIAL...

A heated moment when Public Defender Dena Reni Cruz motions to withdraw because she was fired for arguing about the lack of necessity to subpoena the Complainants' Police Personnel Record. 

NOVEMBER 20, 2006  and still no TRIAL...

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. 

February 27, 2007 and still no TRIAL...

This video is uploaded on the one year anniversary of the 3rd arrest when Kauai Police officers, without probable cause, severely assaulted me leaving me with a fractured wrist, a grove on the left side of my head causing concussion and a long lasting headache.

Marc E. Guyot (ABSENT) has interfered with a direct court order and receives a scolding from the judge sitting on my case.

Apparently The Honorable Kathleen A. Watanabe had read Dr. Samsells' report.


PINKERTON FREE DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Closing arguments that led to Pinkerton's freedom:
October 09/2007

“The problem of prosecutors breaking the law is more frightening, and does more damage to society, than any common criminal,” said Denver attorney Larry S. Pozner.

 “Some prosecutors have come to believe that they are exempt from the code of legal ethics, that the rules of civilized conduct don’t apply to them. We look to prosecutors to enforce the law, but who will protect us when the prosecutor becomes the lawbreaker?”