Federal judge rejects ex-trustee's claims

By David Waite
Advertiser Courts Writer

A federal judge has thrown out former Bishop Estate trustee Richard "Dickie" Wong's claims seeking millions of dollars from past and current state attorneys general and their deputies for allegedly violating his civil rights and maliciously prosecuting him.

But Wong's lawyer yesterday said the former trustee will file a similar suit in state court.

In a written ruling Thursday, federal Judge Alan Kay sided with the attorney general's argument that the state lawyers were acting in their roles as advocates for the state and were entitled to "absolute immunity."

Yesterday, the state attorney general's office issued a press release announcing that Kay had ruled that Wong could not "pursue his action seeking millions of dollars from present and former employees of the Department of the Attorney General who worked on the trust proceedings that resulted in his removal as trustee or on the criminal indictments against him that were ultimately dismissed."

Wong's attorney Eric Seitz said Kay's ruling "comes as no surprise" because he had the burden of showing that the state attorneys were acting in a clearly abusive manner in their repeated attempts to prosecute Wong in order for the doctrine of absolute immunity not to apply.

Seitz said he will file an appeal.

In addition, Seitz said he intends to file a lawsuit on Wong's behalf, alleging malicious prosecution, in state court sometime next month.

In 1999, Wong, Henry Peters, Gerard Jervis and Lokelani Lindsey were removed as members of the board of the charitable trust following months of investigation by then-Attorney General Margery Bronster into the multibillion-dollar Bishop Estate, now known as Kamehameha Schools. A fifth trustee, Oswald Stender, resigned.

In February, the Hawai'i Su-preme Court ordered the attorney general's office to stop trying to prosecute Wong, Peters and a third man — developer Jeffrey Stone — on theft charges involving a Hawai'i Kai land deal that grew out of Bronster's investigation.

In their ruling, the justices said that state prosecutors "threatened the integrity of the judicial process" while acting in "complete disregard of the attorney-client privilege and the rules of evidence" in trying to make the case against Wong and Peters.

Wong had filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming his civil rights were violated by the attorney general's office by its repeated efforts to try him on theft, and later perjury, charges.

In his ruling, Kay said Wong's claims are "based upon certain prosecutorial conduct which, while reprehensible as outlined in plaintiffs' papers and by the findings made by the Hawai'i Supreme Court, nonetheless is entitled to absolute immunity and requires dismissal."