I am reaching out to you with deep respect and a sincere plea for help. I am an U.S. citizen in Hawaii, representing myself (“pro se”) in civil cases against the State of Hawaii Agencies, Case Nos. 1CCV-24-0001439, 1CCV-24-0001549 (Circuit Court of the First Circuit), and SCPW-24-0000638 (Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii).

I am reaching out to you not simply as a litigant, but as a U.S. citizen deeply concerned about how Hawaii government power and judicial discretion can raise equal protection and access-to-justice concerns, intersecting to quietly erase due process, especially when no media scrutiny exists.

Over the past year, I have followed every rule, every court order, and every requirement under the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP). For Case No. 1CCV-24-0001439, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, Summons, and Civil Information Sheet pursuant to Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone's order dated February 4, 2025 (Dkt. 85) and served the Defendants on April 22, 2025, through the State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General’s office, pursuant to HRCP Rule 4(d)(5), as construed by Honorable Judge Dean E. Ochiai. I properly served the Amended Complaint, Summons, and Civil Information Sheet through the Hawaii State Attorney General’s office, as required by law, with clear documentation in the case record – Judge Kevin T. Morikone’s orders, Proof of Service, Notarized Proof of Service, two signed Acknowledgment of Service, and prior court confirmations of service. Yet, despite clear documentation in the case record confirmations of proper service, my filings have been ignored, misrepresented, and wrongly dismissed because the defendants, who had defaulted for over 130 days made a special appearance, led by Attorney General Anne E. Lopez along with six other Deputy Attorneys General and state officials, and filed their only motion, Dkt. 229: an untimely, factually false, meritless, legally moot, fraudulent, misrepresentative, and fraudulently procured motion to “want of service” on the nullified Complaint, alleging defects on the nullified October 8, 2024, complaint. This contradicted prior court orders and their own two Acknowledgments of Service as they are above the law.

The record in 1CCV-24-0001439 shows:

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 8, 2024, which was nullified on April 7, 2025, pursuant to the First Circuit Court of Hawaii, Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone's order dated February 4, 2025 (Dkt. 85). That order explicitly stated: "At the request of Plaintiff, the Court shall permit the amendment of the case caption to reflect Defendant as 'State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services, and Aloha Stadium' rather than State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services being a separately named Defendant from Aloha Stadium." The Court addressed Defendants as: State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General Services, Aloha Stadium; State of Hawaii, Department of Human Resources Development, Employee Claim Division.
Defendants’ only motion (Dkt. 229), added “Aloha Stadium" to a nonparty in this case and addressed Defendants as: Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawaii; Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Aloha Stadium, Aloha Stadium, State of Hawaii; Department of Human Resources Development, Employee Claims Division, State of Hawaii. This was in direct violation of Judge Morikone’s February 4, 2025, order (Dkt. 85) and sought improper service on the nullified complaint filed on October 8, 2024.
The State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General’s office accepted service on April 22, 2025, on behalf of the Defendants (two state agencies) for two sets of Amended complaints, Summonses, and Civil Information Sheets (served three set but accepted two set), but then failed to respond for over 130 days, placing them in clear default under the served Summons (20-day response deadline), HRCP Rules 12(a) (20-day response deadline) and 55 (default entry).
Despite this default, the State of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General later made a special appearance, led by Attorney General Anne E. Lopez along with six other Deputy Attorneys General and state officials, and filed an untimely, factually false, meritless, legally moot, fraudulent, misrepresentative, and fraudulently procured motion want of service on the nullified Complaint, alleging improper service on the nullified October 8, 2024, complaint. This contradicted prior court orders and their own two Acknowledgment of Service.
Through this fraudulently procured motion Dkt. 229, Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone granted dismissal of Case No. 1CCV-24-0001439. When I sought relief under HRCP Rule 60(b) for mistake, fraud, and misrepresentation supported by docket evidence, the court denied my motions without addressing the evidence, facts, or legal basis for dismissal, effectively excusing the State's misconduct while punishing the citizen who followed the rules.
On November 7, 2025, Judge Morikone denied all of my motions for relief and default judgment, upholding a process that contradicts both the law and the facts on record.
Defendants asserted that they did not receive the Complaint. But in Defendants’ only motion Dkt. 229, Gavin K. Tom declared that he found a copy of the Complaint at the State of Hawaii, Department of the Attorney General (AG)’s Office. Roger D.B. Hargrave further declared that he received only an Amended Complaint for the AG only, while both Jennifer Mori-Kilbey and Keith A. Regan declared that neither the Complaint nor the Amended Complaint was ever served by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully asks: If Plaintiff did not serve the Complaint, and Defendants deny receiving it, then how did the Complaint reach the AG’s Office? Does this inconsistency logically clearly indicate that the declared statements made in Dkt. 229 are misleading, contain misrepresentations and fraudulent with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence with materially false statement?
Additionally, Roger D.B. Hargrave unsigned Declaration declared in Dkt. 229 that he received only one Amended Complaint for the AG’s Office only. But the case records (Dkts. 114, 116, 118, 120, and 124) clearly showed that Roger d.B. Hargrave (name on his work badge or work ID) received two complete sets of the Amended Complaint, Summons, and Civil Information Sheet on behalf of the Defendants. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court, Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone’s clarification regarding this discrepancy, as the record directly contradicts Mr. Hargrave’s sworn statements. Is this fraud and misrepresentation with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and materially false statements?
This Court, Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone’s ten orders served to Plaintiff (Dkts. 85, 87, 134, 147, 160, 167, 178, 250, 252 & 289) filed on February 4, 2025; February 4, 2025; May 5, 2025; June 9, 2025; June 25, 2025; July 2, 2025; July 11, 2025; October 8, 2025; October 8, 2025; and November 7, 2025, respectively, consistently and unequivocally addressed the Defendants as: “STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES, ALOHA STADIUM; STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYEE CLAIM DIVISION”, and The Court Clerk’s Entry of June 4, 2025 (Dkt. 145) listed the same Defendants. However, Defendants, by and through special appearances with seven State Officials led by Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, filed Dkts. 229 (8/29/2025), 248 (10/6/2025), 275 (10/14/2025), 281 (10/22/2025), 291 (11/7/2025), 295 (11/17/2025), and 299 (11/25/2025) all addressed the Defendants as: “Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawaii; Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Aloha Stadium, Aloha Stadium, State of Hawaii; Department of Human Resources Development, Employee Claims Division, State of Hawaii” Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court, Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone: Is it legally permissible for a party to list the Defendants differently than in the Court's prior orders for the same case? Is this falsely alter, falsely make, materially false of Defendants?
Defendants further committed fraud on the court by fabricating non-existent hearings and the Court vacate of scheduling conference as vacate the entire case on the proposed order. Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court, Honorable Judge Kevin T. Morikone: Is it legally permissible for a party to fraud on the Court with the Court's prior order for the case? Is this falsely alter, falsely make, materially false of Defendants?
The court failed to serve me with the dismissal orders, as required by HRCP Rules, leaving me without timely notice to respond or appeal, which compounds the equal protection denial for pro se litigants reliant on public dockets.
Orders Dkts. 311, 312, and 313, filed on November 1, 2025 did not appear in the public case record on eCourt Kokua as of November 2, 2025, or November 29, 2025, but suddenly materialized on December 12, 2025, raising grave concerns of docket manipulation or backdating to conceal irregularities.
In the dockets page on eCourt Kokua, columns systematically misstate my filing names and new motions (e.g., omitting descriptions of my timely submissions or altering them to appear deficient), further obscuring the record and hindering my access to justice.
This legal record reveals a clear pattern of unfairness:

Hawaii government attorneys asserting false procedural claims after missing mandatory deadlines.
The Hawaii judiciary disregarding its own rules and prior orders to favor Defendants state agencies.
A pro se plaintiff denied basic procedural fairness, despite full compliance with every requirement.
This case raise fundamental questions about Hawaii Court transparency, accountability, and whether state agencies in Hawaii can evade due process without consequence. This pattern is not unique to my cases; it reflects Hawaii systemic culture where institutional actors protect each other at the expense of the rule of law.

I have compiled a complete documentary record including the court docket, service acknowledgments, motions, and orders that I would be glad to share for your review. I believe this material reveals not just a personal injustice, but a broader story of how Hawaii legal and governmental institutions shield themselves from accountability.

Hawaii reporting often highlights the tension between power and principle, between citizens’ rights and the bureaucratic systems that undermine them. That’s precisely the story unfolding here.
In Case No. 1CCV-24-0001549, Honorable Judge Taryn R. Tomasa made false statements about my motion and committed violations of the Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) to justify issuing her orders. She even created her own extrajudicial rules, such as the 'Standard of Conduct' in Dkt. 146 requiring multiple paper copies and 'court shelf' deliveries only for pro se litigants and demanded that I follow them, denying me equal access to justice.

In Case No. SCPW-24-0000638, my initial writ petition or motion filed on September 18, 2024, explicitly sought review by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). However, it was denied and dismissed by the Supreme Court, which stated: “nor does the denial of the petition prevent petitioner from seeking review of the issues raised in this petition on appeal in the Intermediate Court of Appeals, as appropriate.” The court also instructed me to file a new case. How does this make sense? It creates a procedural catch-22, blocking pro se access to timely review.

To build our voice on exposing hypocrisy, institutional bias, and the way Hawaii powerful systems silence ordinary people. What has happened here in Hawaii is exactly that: the Hawaii government and its lawyers appear to be operating above the law, and a citizen’s constitutional right to fair process has been erased by procedural manipulation and judicial indifference.

I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for transparency, accountability for your attention, for honest journalism, and for a public record of what is happening inside Hawaii’s courts. The people deserve to know when justice is being replaced by bureaucratic self-protection.

If you are willing, I’m available by phone, video, or in person anytime. I would be honored to share with you the complete docket record, evidence of proper service, the Attorney General’s office acknowledgments, and the court’s contradictory orders. This story is not only about me it’s about how Hawaii government power can override due process when no one is watching.

Thank you for your time, your courage, and your commitment to truth. Please sign and share my petition to demand an overturn and investigation: Petition: self-represented plaintiff needs help fighting Hawaii court fraud. Your voice could spark real change! https://www.change.org/p/self-represented-plaintiff-needs-help-fighting-hawaii-court-fraud