GENERAL COMMENTS
What are your thoughts about this series?
Story: A four-part Advertiser report on the state's highest court.

[Posted on December 17, 2003 at 8:56 am HST]
Congratulations on this series. I hope that you will continue this investigation and enlighten the public on the grueling workdays of these justices.
Kay Ghean
Maui

[Posted on December 16, 2003 at 12:12 pm HST]
I am awaiting word that my son's conviction will be overturned by the court. I am glad that you are doing the series on the court. Too much is done in secrecy and dishonesty in the judicial system here in Hawaii. I am sure it happens elsewhere as well. I would like to do some press with your paper when we get word about my son's case. I have been here from California for nearly a year trying to support my son. He is taking the fall for two others and for the corrupt prosecutors and police in Hilo. More on this later. I have documents that prove the dirty deals that the state knowingly made with the truly guily "states witnesses". My son was framed and railroaded from day one. Hopefully this will all be brought to the attention of the citizens and taxpayers of Hawaii. Sincerely yours
I wish to remain anonymous at this time
oahu, hawaii right now

[Posted on November 26, 2003 at 4:06 pm HST]
Very good report. Great job Advertiser!
Chris
Honolulu

COMMENTS FROM: PART I
Challenges facing the Hawai'i Supreme Court today
Story: Supreme Court struggles as cases, criticism pile up

[Posted on January 8, 2004 at 8:45 am HST]
I have a Hawaii workers comp case that still has not been settled since 1992...where's the 3,4 or 5 year wait in that statement. Maybe we should put case decisons to the public rather then the courts
Vic
Arizona

[Posted on November 24, 2003 at 12:50 am HST]
The article present good reasons to have election of judges like in many state governements. It should be the people to decide who becomes judges and for the judges to answer the concerns of the people, instead of the politicians and lawyers.
L. Shaw
Waikele

[Posted on November 23, 2003 at 9:59 pm HST]
Finally, a worthy article that succinctly discerns between half-truths from the whole truths & nothing but the entire truth. Lynda has the grace to probe with a laser beam, garner essential bulky information & breaking it down to digestable comprehensive parts. Truly magnificent talent of political journalist writing at its best!
Quinn Nii
Hawaii Kai

[Posted on November 23, 2003 at 8:54 pm HST]
Good job Lynda, this calls for a raise.
Nelson
Hilo

[Posted on November 23, 2003 at 7:35 pm HST]
Thank you Linda! Very informative andto the point. The common thread is that the court is on the Left wing ideological Jihad and all other issues are vviewed as periferal.
Greg Sheindlin
Salt Lake

[Posted on November 23, 2003 at 4:38 pm HST]
Can't wait for the rest of the series.
John Q
Hilo

[Posted on November 23, 2003 at 10:52 am HST]
Great work Advertiser! Keep it up!
Bruce Miyoshi
Honolulu

COMMENTS FROM: PART II
Lives are on hold as the court tries to tackle its backlog of cases
Story: Justice moves slowly, painfully

[Posted on November 24, 2003 at 11:55 am HST]
Lynda has the grace to probe with a laser beam focus, garner essential bulky data & breaking it down to digestable comprehensive parts. Truly magnificent talent of journalistic writing at its finest.
Quinn Nii
Hawaii Kai

COMMENTS FROM: PART III
Lawyers want more guidance from the court
Plus, a look at tension on the bench
Story: High court keeps low profile

[Posted on November 25, 2003 at 4:15 pm HST]
Your articles are excellent, but only scratch the surface in the crimes of the Supreme Court against the citizens of the State of Hawaii.
For instance, their Attorney Licensing Board licenses convicted felons as attorneys and then doesn't require these felons to carry one cent of legal malpractice insurance. Doing so might cause the general cost of legal malpractice insurance to skyrocket if all the innocent clients of these felons are allowed to subsequently sue these Hawaii 'licensed attorneys' for malpractice. These suits would cause the general cost of legal malpractice to skyrocket and this would take money out of the millionaire attorney class.
And, when one of the innocent citizens who has been ripped off by one of these 'licensed attornies' (who - unknown to the citizen - has previously been convicted of a felony such as real estate fraud) attempts to sue the uninsured 'attorney', the attorney having no malpractice insurance, files for bankruptsy, and the Court then rules that the Hawaii Attorney Licensing Board is itself immune from liability!!
Sounds like a MAUFIA to me and to the many many thousands of Hawaii residents who are ripped off every year by this house of crooks called the Hawai'i Supreme Court.
For a second take the corrupt Disciplinary Council of the Supreme Court.
The Disciplinary Council are supposed to follow the Rules of the Supreme Court in its Disciplinary Proceedures. However, These rules are not followed and every courtesy is given to the Defendant Attorney in the Complaint to the detriment to the ripped off 'client' of the attorney.
Why should the Disciplinary Council do otherwise, as the Council is made up of Attorneys who do not want to cause big settlement payments in legal malpractice insurnace moneys going to injured 'clients'. If they allowed fast, open, and fair hearings of the citizen's complaints, the costs of legal malpractice insurance would be VERY VERY expensive.
Want more - I can give you case numbers and names of disbarred attorneys too.
r. rodman
Wikiki

[Posted on November 25, 2003 at 12:09 pm HST]
Even with the best of criteria to guide which cases get oral hearings and which do not, the process is prone to subjectivity. I know of a case where an oral hearing was granted on an issue that had no chance of prevailing (hide-bound jurisdictional law against it) in deference to a large law firm that merely wanted to give a fledgeling litigator court experience. The hearing was held, the fledgeling got his experience and the court ruled against him on the basis of the hide-bound law as expected. In the meantime, other more substantive cases were denied oral hearings.
D. Bremner
Kailua

[Posted on November 25, 2003 at 11:50 am HST]
Even with the best of criteria for determining which cases get oral hearings and which do not, the decision, especially if made by the one person,e.g., the Chief Justice or his clerk,is prone to subjectivity and outright "politics."
In 1989,I was a party in a case before the Hawaii Supreme Court. Despite its criteria and the court's desire to cut down on oral hearings to expedite cases, the court granted an oral hearing to a party with an issue that had no chance of prevailing (hide-bound jurisdictional law against it)apparently in deferrence to a large law firm wanting to give one of its fledgeling litigators some experience before the Supreme Court. The hearing occurred,m the fledgeling
D. Bremner
Kailua

[Posted on November 25, 2003 at 9:49 am HST]
One is inclined to wonder what system of priorities would allow the Supreme Court to take action on the Case of Tom Foley - a convicted felon who killed a person while drunk - and reinstate him as a practicing attorney and yet not take action on other cases that have been languishing for years.
HL
Honolulu

[Posted on November 25, 2003 at 8:26 am HST]
Great article. Hits the problem right on the head. It's about time Justice Acoba's concerns become a matter of public interest. Since the judiciary is an autonomous body, articles such as this are one of the few vehicles that can be used to implement change. Though it may not be direct, the change will eventually happen through public criticism. Time to hold the Supreme Court accountable- we all need resolution to cases and, more importantly, guidance on where the law stands.
WY
Waialae-Iki

COMMENTS FROM: PART IV
What's next for the court?
Story: Functional or not, 'it's the chief's court'

[Posted on November 26, 2003 at 11:22 am HST]
As a former appellant to the Hawaii Supreme Court, I am only too familiar with the long and agonizing wait for a decision. Why not increase the Intermediate Court to nine justices, sitting in panels of three? The Supreme Court could then screen the important cases and assign the rest to the Intermediate Court for memorandum decisions. There is no need for the Supreme Court to handle many of the legally insignificant cases. This would free up the Supreme Court for more oral arguments and expedite their final decisions. I also believe our judges should be paid much more than the current salaries.
Brice Conquest
Honolulu

[Posted on November 26, 2003 at 7:04 am HST]
Your series on the Supreme Court is instresting
but I feel you are being too charitable
about the " Moon court" and the Judiciary.
I think you need to cover more about how
the dysfuction of this court has caused problems
whose cases have languished awaiting the high
court's decision. To me, the lack of oral
arguments and written decisions suggest that some who have sat and now sit on the court may not be
up to the task.
david
Honolulu

[Posted on November 26, 2003 at 2:02 am HST]
Lynda makes a compelling case that this Chief who 'loves to be underestimated' has a highly effective approach to leadership that is humane, direct, and at times emotionally confrontational.
Quinn Kwocke Nii
Kuli'ou'ou Valley