PART FOUR: CIVIL COURT REVELATIONS

     The judge in District Court had found me not guilty of assaulting a police officer.  While this saved me
from an undeserved criminal record, it still left criminals at large in the Honolulu Police Department.  At
least one officer had beaten me - perhaps several officers had - and four had filed false charges against
me, three of them lying in court.  This was unacceptable for several reasons:
     One of the first standards of self-preservation is that you do not give in to aggressors.  If you run, if
you back down, or give in, you are marked as a victim, and doomed to either die early or be a slave.  I
was brought up - told early in my life by my father, that if bullies - anyone - hit me, I should hit them
back as hard as I could.  When Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi assaulted me, I could not fight back,
because 1) they were all carrying guns, and 2) they were wearing police uniforms, which, to my
understanding, meant that in U.S. courts, their word would automatically be given priority over anyone
else's.  They could have shot me dead and made the same claim - that I had attacked one of them - and
the laws of the United States and the State of Hawai'i would have backed them up, as a matter of
custom.  I knew this as I sat on that wall and let them beat on my head - however batty this would make
me in the succeeding months - that they could kill me if they wanted to, and claim self-defense, and I
would have no recourse.  I would be dead. This was the most personal reason - I could not fight back
while I was being assaulted, nor could I flee.  This went against every bone in my body and every
instinct in my mind.   
     In the larger social context, if I could not, or would not, confront my own attackers, how could I take a
stand about any other injustices?
     My belief in basic human moral standards was another reason that I could not let this event go
unchallenged.  Even if I was not personally involved, or a victim of this attack, if I witnessed such an
unwarranted assault, I would - or hope I would - have the integrity to report it and testify when the time
came.  Placing someone on a wall and punching their head until they are unconscious is wrong, period.  
Anyone who does this is a sick individual, who should be reported to the authorities.  Unfortunately, in
this instance, the authorities were also - in part - the sick individuals.  The next step in the process would
be to report the individuals and the authorities to their superiors - in this case, the Police Commission
and courts of Hawai'i.  Since they in turn have failed, I have moved on to the citizens and lawmakers of
Hawai'i - the public and their representatives.  Hence this report.
     As a citizen of the United States of America, I am responsible for monitoring the behavior and
conduct of my employees.  I believe that if I could not make a stand regarding abuses to myself, I would
be betraying the public trust that I take as a given:  that the United States is a government  "of the
people, by the people, and for the people."  I am as responsible as any American citizen for curbing my
dogs. These police officers' conduct was paramountly unacceptable - I report this to my fellow citizens.
     The officer(s) who continually badgered me throughout the assault were, by virtue of being civil
servants, my employees.  I - and every other Hawai'i taxpayer - paid these criminals, not only while they
were beating me, but when they lied through their teeth in Court and to the Police Commission (and to
the FBI?).  Citizens pay taxes, and police protection is part of what those taxes go towards.  I first-hand
experienced Honolulu police officers willingly and joyfully committing crimes while on the time clock.  I,
and every other Hawai'i taxpayer - on September 26, 1996 - paid Ronald Lopes, Wallace Aina, David
Wingo, and Dru Akagi to commit assault, battery, and perjury, and continued to financially support
these crimes for years.  This is unacceptable to me, and should be for every Hawai'i taxpayer.

     This is a long section, covering five years of civil litigation as I experienced it.  From the process of
engaging an attorney through reluctantly accepting a settlement in which I lost thousands of dollars, it
covers correspondence between me and my attorney, depositions, interrogatories, and contact with the
FBI.  I wanted to bring my assailants to justice - to at least publicly accuse them in a court of law - and
in the end I couldn't afford the drain on my finances and emotional health that the US court process was
extracting from me.I learned that the US Civil Court is not about bringing criminals to justice. I found
myself wondering if my attorney had been bought off by the defendants - paid to "take a dive."  
     I have tried to be as fair as possible, given that I was the plaintiff.  If an attorney or investigator asked
me a relevant question, I have included it and my answer here.  Prior injuries and cases were
questioned, and are included.  If the reading gets tedious, please skip down to the last page or two,
where a very fishy deal was concluded, and I think that you will see that everything included in this
section is relevant.  Be glad that it won't take you five years and cost $17,000.
     This is a personal document - a small part of history from my point of view. The most appropriate and
thorough context will be through the correspondence between me and my attorney. The context of that
was my day to day life during the Civil Court process, and before and after the incident. As I mentioned
above, my past history and relations with HPD were brought up, and I have tried to deal with these as
honestly as possible, without straying too far from the original assault and it's consequences.  I have
endeavored to copy everything as accurately as possible, which means that the punctuation as a whole is
inconsistent.  That is because I was inconsistent in my various letters, but present them here as they
were originally.  

     The District Court trial was on December 30, 1996.  After being exonerated, I wrote to the ACLU in
January 1997, asking if they could help in my pursuit of justice.  They wrote back, stating that at the
time they were very short of funds, and in fact did not even have an attorney on staff.  They included
an application with their letter, advising me that since they were relying solely on volunteer attorneys, it
would take about four to five weeks for them to review and respond to my case.  It sounded like they
were receiving far more queries than they could handle.  Judging from the large volume of people I had
seen at the Public Defender's office, I suspected that quite a few people had more pressing needs than I
did, so I didn't apply to the ACLU, but decided to talk to a private attorney.
     I had absolutely no idea which attorney to contact, so I called the Hawaii Bar Association.  I explained
that I had been beaten by police officers, and wanted to take them to court.  The person I talked to gave
me several attorney's names and phone numbers, and suggested that I try Arnold T. Phillips first.  When
I asked her if the recommendation was based on Phillips having a good win / loss record, she replied
that they didn't keep track of things like that.  "He handles police misconduct,” she said.  "Call him
first."
     On the phone, Phillips and I set up an appointment at his office.  Wendy accompanied me to the
interview, and he talked to both of us about what had happened during the incident.  He was encouraged
by the fact that I had been found not guilty, and even more so when I mentioned that Wallace Aina had
been one of my assailants.  He had dealt with Aina more than once, he said.  They (HPD) should have
got rid of him a long time ago.
     Phillips asked Wendy if she was willing to testify in court.  Not only was she willing, she replied that
she felt that she too had been assaulted - emotionally - by the officers.  I gave Phillips the pager number
of my other witness, Steve Lauer, and the number of my Public Defender, Ms. Tulang.  Phillips and I
agreed that he would take my case on a contingency basis, and he gave me a contract to review and
sign, if I agreed to the terms.  We set up another meeting for a few days later, when he would take a
more in-depth statement from me.
     Mr. Phillips and I signed our contract on February 28, 1997, with the understanding that a $1500
retainer was due by me as soon as possible.  I had explained that I was rather deeply in debt from my
taxi business a few years earlier, had only $800 to start things off, but could cover the rest with
payments.  Mr. Phillips agreed to this, and we were underway.

     On March 1, 1997, Mr. Phillips sent me a letter reminding me that the $1500 retainer would be
necessary to complete the preliminary matters and start the contract.  He estimated that the cost of the
trial and an expert witness would be in the $4000 to $7000 range, and suggested that I start saving early
so the money would be available when we needed it.  He also wanted to get a statement from Wendy
and a copy of the criminal (District) Court trial in December.  He cautioned me against making any
statements about filing a lawsuit, and wanted to get statements from all witnesses "...at a stage when we
are still in the investigation."

     From Arnold T. Phillips, in a March 5 letter: "There are now three cases that I have which involve
Wallace Aina.  Because of this number I think that we may be able to exercise some economies by
sharing as many expenses as possible.  For instance, it may be possible to save a considerable amount
by sharing the same expert on all cases."
     I wasn't sure what he meant by an "expert," but my questions were addressed  (though not really
answered)  in a letter sent to "Albert" Arney:
          
     Arnold T. Phillips, May 21, 1997:  
     "Enclosed please find the information on an expert witness which I propose to consider to have review
the case and give us an opinion.  The expert can also help guide us in the information that we will need
to get from the City and County for him to make his conclusions.  This information we will be getting
when we enter the discovery portion of the case.
     "If you agree to use him I will commit and arrange for the payment of the fees.  There is a $300 fee
for retaining this expert and his fee of $150 per hour for evaluation and testimony.  If you direct me to
proceed I will find out exactly the total up front money will be before we proceed further."
     The information enclosed was a resume of Edward Moreland, who had been a special agent in the
FBI, and was particularly experienced in investigating and testifying in civil rights cases.  He was
currently self employed as an expert witness in law enforcement, corrections, and civil rights matters.  
Phillips did not mention whether or not the fees quoted were totals or my share if they were split with
his other clients.

     On April 17, the Police Commission wrote to me, informing me that after "the interview of all available
witnesses and the review of all documented evidence," they "found that the officers had acted
accordingly within the guidelines established by the Honolulu Police Department..."

     A July 1 letter from Mr. Phillips informed me that the court transcript was ready to be picked up, and
$150 was needed.  The expert was ready to "come on board," and his fees would be due.

     On September 12, 1997, another letter to Albert arrived (the previous one had been correct - to
Alfred): "In response to your telephone call of Thursday September 11, 1997, this will acknowledge
receipt of $350.00 paid toward the expenses.  Enclosed please find the receipt on the transcript of the
trial on the criminal charges.  The next step is to get a statement by the investigator of the witness, you
and Wendy.  With this information we can move to have the expert proceed with his work.  Then we
will file suit.  I have switched to another expert witness who has been used here in Hawaii on other
cases and I am using him on one at this time.  His fee for evaluation is $1825.00.  His name is Frank
Saunders and I am sending you further information on his track record.  You will make the payments
directly to him.
     "I think that it is the time to draw on the resources so that the expert can be retained.  Let me know
next week when we can expect to have Mr. Saunders' retainer available."

    I wasn't sure if I was still confused from the beating, but I was starting to have problems understanding
Mr. Phillips' grammar.  For example - "..the receipt on the transcript of the trial" probably meant the
receipt for the transcript.  What he meant by "...a statement by the investigator of the witness, you and
Wendy," though, was beyond me.  (I speculate now - 2004 - that he could have been referring to the
Police Commission investigator interviewing Steven Lauer, although it turned out that the P.C. didn't
contact Lauer.)  And I was dismayed that he had changed expert witnesses, especially to one who cost
$1500 more than the original.
     The information on Mr. Saunders' track record was that he had spent 15 years in the Santa Monica
(California) Police Department, and since 1981 had operated a private investigation and security firm.  
Like Moreland, Saunders was an expert witness, especially involving police procedures and misconduct.  
His resume included lists of awards and court appearances, and thank you letters from clients.
     There were no resources to draw on.  I had asked my family for financial help, and they had loaned
me as much as they could already.  Most of what I was making was going toward my credit card debts
and the high cost of living in Hawai'i.  In an effort to minimize expenses, I left Wendy's father's house
and took up residence in a tent.
     You might wonder about communications between Mr. Phillips and me.  Generally, when I called his
office, I was only able to leave a message with his answering service.  I had no phone of my own, so he
usually replied by mail.  Sometimes we actually talked to each other.

     Mr. Phillips and Mr. Saunders came to my workplace one morning.  Fortunately, I'd arrived about half
an hour before my shift started, and Wendy was with me.  Mr. Saunders talked to both of us, and, as
Phillips had, asked Wendy if she would be willing to testify in court.  As she had related to Mr. Phillips,
Wendy said that she felt that she had been assaulted emotionally.  She wanted to testify, but she was
worried for her own safety, and that of her family, and wanted protection.  I volunteered to take on that
responsibility, explaining to them that the attorney's job was to initiate and conduct the lawsuit, the
witnesses'  was to advise and testify, and neither of their duties was to provide protection.  When they
pressed Wendy about her fears, she replied that they (the defendants) were stalking her daughter.  I
could see that Saunders and Phillips weren't comfortable with this, but they moved on to other questions.
     One of the questions that Wendy had was:  how much money were we looking at getting if we won the
lawsuit?  Phillips replied that at that point in time he had received the highest cash amount ever awarded
from the City of Honolulu, and mentioned a figure over $200,000  (I don't recall the exact amount).  I
hadn't even thought about the procedure as a money matter - I was pursuing this as a way of bringing
the officers to justice, and having them disciplined.

     Arnold T. Phillips, September 22, 1997:
     "Enclosed is the letter to Shepard Ginandes for the treatment and evaluation that I would like for you
to receive.  Please review, sign and return if you agree to this arrangement."

     I had met with Mr. Phillips at a downtown restaurant, where we discussed the situation.  He wanted
me to get a medical evaluation regarding my head trauma / injury, as this would prove damages in a
court or settlement scenario.  The hypno-therapist he recommended was Dr. Shepard Ginandes, and I
had a preliminary visit with him.  My recollection of my follow-up conversation with Mr. Phillips was
that I did not have the financial resources to engage Dr. Ginandes' services, but if he (Ginandes) would
be willing to take my case on a contingency basis - as Phillips had - when we won the case, Ginandes
would be paid.  If we did not win, I would be responsible for the office visits.
     The September 22 letter did not include a letter / contract with Dr. Ginandes.
     At the downtown meeting, Mr. Phillips had also advised me that I did not need Wendy as a witness.  
He thought her emotional instability would probably damage my case, and he suggested that I distance
myself from her, if that was possible.  "Your testimony alone will be enough to convict," he said.  At the
time, that was a liberating statement, as relations between me, Wendy, and her family had deteriorated
significantly.

     Arnold T. Phillips, December 16, 1997:
     "This is a status report on your case.  We are proceeding on another police misconduct case and it is
set for trial in August.  As part of that preparation we have retained an expert from California.  I would
propose that we use him in your case also.  His name is Frank Saunders and he is very experienced and
successful.
     "I have had periodic reports from Dr. Shepard Ginandes regarding treatment and evaluation.  He says
that all is proceeding well.  He is also being used in the other case now underway.
     "There has been no further messages from (Wendy) it appears that she has forgotten about it and that
may be a benefit."

      Mr. Saunders had now been introduced to me three times.  It didn't seem significant to me then, as I
was slogging through life one day at a time.
      It became obvious to me that I was not going to finance this lawsuit while living in Hawai'i.  I started
casting around for better financial alternatives, and in the spring of 1998 was hired by Princess Tours to

 drive for them in Alaska.  I put my possessions into a locker, and took my cat, myself, and the clothes  

on my back to Alaska at the end of winter, 1998.

     Arnold T. Phillips, June 27, 1998:
     "The costs for the case are estimates but you can expect them to follow this range:
         Filing fee and service $175
         Expert Saunders   $1800 deposit and same for trial testimony
         Expert Ginandes   $1000
         Deposition of police officers   $2500
     "If you have the deposit to get to Saunders, we can file the lawsuit, and we can take the deposition of
the police officers we should be able to get this case in shape for settlement or trial.  If we have to go to
trial then we can expect about $4000 to $5000 more expenses.
    Hopefully this will give you an idea of what to expect.  There have been a police abuse article in the
paper here about once a week.  So it is still going on as usual.
     "Enclosed is the letter to Shepard Ginandes for the treatment and evaluation that I would like for you
to receive.  Please review, sign and return if you agree to this arrangement. .."

     I was already in Alaska at this time.  I had already seen Dr. Ginandes from October 1997 until April
03, 1998, under the impression that he would bill us (me) when the lawsuit was concluded.  The
treatment and evaluation had already been completed by the time I received this letter, but the letter to
Dr. Ginandes was not included.  Note that the estimated costs for the case were now up to $9000 or
$10,000.

     I can't locate my copies of letters that I sent to Mr. Phillips from Alaska that summer, so I have to
infer some of my correspondence from his letters to me.  For example, on July 16, 1998:

     Arnold T. Phillips:
     "Please accept my apologizes for all the questions raised.
     "The depositions are questions and answers that are taken of a witness who is under oath and it is
taken down and transcribed by a court reporter.  It is the way that you can have a witness tell their story
and have a record of it so that they cannot change.
     "You can pay Saunders and you have the correct address.
     "The $2500 should be on deposit in the trust account before we begin.  From that we will pay the filing
fee and any investigation and get a start on the police officers' depositions.
     "We will need to show that this treatment you got - stopping someone, treating them improperly, and
then bringing criminal charges against them - is wide spread.  A way to do that is to go through all of the
other cases under this section of the law that you were charged under and interview those people.
     "This is necessary because it will be our responsibility to show that the city and county knew about this
and did nothing. To prove that we need to go back over the records for several years.  It may well be
hundreds and hundreds of records.
     "For this kind of analysis we can use law students, but they must be paid.  If I had to give you a rough
estimate that might be $3000.
     "Also would you write me and outline for me if you have seen anyone since leaving HI for the
psychological injuries, if not you may want to see someone up there.  This is if you are having sleep
problems or high anxiety or appetite changes.  You may want to look up post traumatic stress disorder
for more information ..."

     So, another $3,000 had been added to Mr. Phillips' estimate from a month earlier.  I wondered - if the
treatment I got from the officers was indeed widespread, wouldn't there be more lawsuits involving that
- and would I be the only one financing the research?

     From a rough draft - from me - in July, 1998:
     "No, I have not seen anyone for the psychological injuries since leaving Hawai'i, because: 1) this is an
isolated location.  There's no doctor of any kind for over 100 miles (Fairbanks), and, 2) I couldn't
afford it anyhow ...  On the other hand, yes, I have had some good psychological input.  Dr. Ginandes
primarily worked through hypnosis (with me, anyhow), reinforcing my own consolidation, clarification,
and motivation.  Using the techniques he taught me, I have invoked him and his therapeutic trances
several times per week, with positive effect. ...
     "Yes, I do suffer from anxiety and lack of sleep, but ... it is only related to the trauma of September,
1996, specifically the financial corner I've painted myself into ...
     "... I do feel that getting knocked unconscious had bad mental consequences.  Whereas before these
instances (Sept 1989 and Sept 1996) I had a pretty high-powered life, existence since then has been
characterized by slow and feeble thinking.  It has been a long time between poor quality thoughts.  One
of the points I want to make in our case ... is that head trauma should not be used on anyone except in
self defense, as it does not "knock sense" into anybody.  The primary sensation I get is that a lot of my
synapses have separated.
     "Originally, when I complained to the Police Commission, I would have been satisfied if the officers
were only fired, or at least disciplined.  When the Commission declined that, my discontent went up. ...   
     "As time has gone on, I'm coming to the position that I don't want any settlement unless the officers
are fired forever from any law enforcement jobs, and / or spend some time behind bars, like the
criminals they are.
     "If, as you say, this treatment is widespread, then we should pursue the strongest discipline possible -
not for my revenge, but to send a strong message (precedent): that this kind of action by officers is: 1)
counter-productive to real law enforcement, 2) injurious to the citizenry, and 3) unacceptable.
     "I have the $1800 for Saunders:  I will have the filing fee and about $2500 by the end of August, but
after September 18 I have no idea what will happen, as this job in Alaska is seasonal. ... I still owe about
$15,000, mostly to credit card collectors, from my disastrous years driving taxi ... have put off a lot of
dental work ... I'm not saying this to cry, just to let you know the situation.  Right now I don't know
when or how I'm going to come up with that research money."

     Arnold T. Phillips, August 19, 1998:
     "... We will proceed to file the lawsuit within two years from the date of the incident.  I will make
every attempt to have it there for your review and signature; however that is not necessary and time
may not allow it.
     "Frank Saunders has received the check for $1,800.00 and he called me.  I have had him hold that
check until he gets the final go ahead.
     "Please understand that these are all tough cases.  There is very little likelihood that the police officers
will be disciplined in any way or that there will be any criminal charges.  You will probably receive some
judgment in the $20,000 to $50,000.
     "We will sue for constitutional violation of conspiring to cover up for the violation of your civil rights,
false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, and any other cause of action that fits the
circumstances.  The judges here are tough on people complaining of police misconduct.  The city will
try to make you out as a person who deserved what you got.  You must be prepared to lose.
     "But if you are willing to go ahead then send on the $2500 I will take a $330.00 balance on the retainer
and start the expenses for filing coming out of this amount.
     "It is not necessary that you be in HI for any matters relating to your case.  I would like to avoid
getting (Wendy) involved again.  If there are jobs on the mainland that you can go to that would be best
probably.  You can see someone for an assessment about the psychological injury and we can see if
they are going to name Wendy as a witness.
     "I go to trial against Aina in another case on the 29th of September which is the statute of limitations
for your case.  Thank you for your courtesy and attention to this matter."

    I was perplexed by Mr. Phillips' statement that there was very little likelihood that the officers would
be disciplined or have criminal charges brought against them.  Even more, I was offended by the notion
that judges would be tough on people complaining of police misconduct.  Judges are the ultimate
custodians of our rights - don't they take pride in upholding the law impartially, with equal justice for all?
     The comment about being prepared to lose was lost on me - in the rough draft of my next letter to
Phillips is: "In no way am I prepared to lose ... I will not rest until these criminals are brought to justice.
It will be better for all concerned if I win early."
     What really disturbed me was that Phillips had apparently lost track of the date that our statute of
limitations ran out, which he had told me earlier was two years from the date of the incident.  The
assault had been on September 26, 1996, and here was Phillips saying, "I go to trial against Aina ... on
the 29th of September, which is the statute of limitations for your case."
     Mail was taking about one week to get from central Alaska to Honolulu.  I didn't take any chances with
a letter, but called Mr. Phillips long distance to make sure we didn't miss the deadline.  As it turned out,
we got in just under the wire, on the afternoon of the 25th.
     Despite my critical tone about Mr. Phillips, please note that on August 19, 1998, I still owed a balance
of $330 on the retainer.  It is obvious that he waited until the retainer was all in before he filed suit, but
it is also obvious that he was poised and prepared when the retainer was received, with the exception
being that he had the date of the statute of limitations wrong.

     Arnold T. Phillips, October 14, 1998:
     "Enclosed is a copy of the complaint that was filed in your case.  It made the papers that following
Sunday.
     "Presently I am working on the research so that we can get the information to show that the complaint
procedure is not working.  There is a Rule 16 hearing set for December 28th.
     "The trial against Aina ended in a mistrial and we will go again in the spring of next year...”

     The complaint was a 24 page document in which we brought charges against officers Wallace Aina,
Ronald Lopes, Dru Akagi, and David Wingo, as well as Police Chief Michael Nakamura, the City and
County of Honolulu, and Jane and John Does 1-10.
     The Causes of Action were: 1) Excessive use of force, 2) False imprisonment, 3) Unlawful seizure, 4)
Initiation and pursuit of prosecution without probable cause, 5) Supervisory liability of the City and
County, the Police Department, Police Chief, and Jane and John Does, 6) Assault and battery,            
7) Malicious prosecution, and 8) Conspiracy to violate civil rights.
     Cause #5 in particular went into detail alleging that the Police Chief and Jane and John Does in the City
were "... aware of the practice of charging citizens to cover improper police activity and having all
officers present or with knowledge of the activity join in this conspiracy ..." and were, ".. also aware that
inaction ... to demand accountability for this type of conduct would have the effect of endorsing this
type of behavior ..."
     "... the City and County of Honolulu intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate
indifference to the rights of the inhabitants of the City and County of Honolulu failed to instruct,
supervise, control, and or discipline, on a continuing basis,  the defendant police officers ..."
     "City and County of Honolulu through it's Honolulu Police Department failed to adequately respond to
and investigate complaints regarding officer misconduct by the citizenry, including, but not limited to,
complaints regarding the use of deadly, excessive or unreasonable force, and bringing false charges to
cover illegal conduct to escape liability creating a policy, practice, custom or atmosphere where such
illegal and unconstitutional behavior is ratified, condoned or approved in deliberate indifference to the
rights of the public at large ..."
     It had been my impression that mine was not an isolated case, but judging from these and other
statements, police brutality was common in Honolulu.  No doubt Mr. Phillips - as he handled multiple
police misconduct cases - had far more information about it than the general public, or the media.  Or
perhaps those law students were already busy doing research on the subject.  At any rate, I felt
vindicated in making my claims, and proud to be taking a stand.  Overall, I was satisfied with the
complaint.
     There were a few errors that I noticed when I reviewed the document, and I sent the corrections to
Mr. Phillips as soon as I could.  Once again I was called Albert, rather than Alfred, and at least three
times I was referred to as "her."  The date of the assault was listed as September 26, 1995 instead of
1996, and the date of the District Court Criminal trial was listed as December 10, 1996, instead of
December 30. Included among my financial losses stemming from the incident was a cost of criminal
defense, when in fact I had gone to the Public Defender, whose services cost me nothing.  I had no idea
whether or not those were critical items, but thought I should mention them.

     I had by this time left Alaska, and was staying with a sister, so have some copies of my letters.

     A. Arney, October 28, 1998:
     "What I'm looking forward to now is being prepared for absolutely every aspect of offense and defense
in the trial.  I have lists of what I consider relevant details, but I don't want to flood you with trivia.  For
example: 1) do the police photos taken when I was booked show evidence of blows to the face - are
such photos admissible - could they have been tampered with?  2) Wendy did not tell the Police
Commission that she saw the officers hitting me (she said she would if she had "protection," as you
may recall).  Does that make them (P.C.) and the City less culpable?  3) are the police allowed to cite
my arrest record, and what is a good approach to dealing with that?  4) would a list of character
witnesses be helpful / allowed?  5) I called 911 three times in the summer of 1996 because of
altercations with Wendy and / or her family.  I also called Joe Natividad (C.I.D.) and H.P.D. several
times in '94 and '95 because my room-mate at the time was being assaulted by her boyfriend.  Would
this be evidence of my trust in and good relations with H.P.D., or is it best left unmentioned?  6) etc,
etc, etc."

     Arnold T. Phillips, December 27, 1998:
     "We are going to file an amended complaint to correct the errors which you pointed out.
     "Also, last week I got an appointment with the administrative judge of the Honolulu District Court so
that we can be allowed to go in and review the harassment cases for 1994 - 1996.  We are going to be
looking for cases that were brought and dismissed or went to court and were dismissed.  We will be
interviewing these persons to see if we can find evidence of other situations where the charge was a
cover for the unlawful acts of the officers.
     "The research is being done by a lawyer from Minnesota who has not passed the Hawaii bar exam.  
He is going to work for $8.00 per hour as billed with a bonus when the attorneys fees are collected at
the end of the case.
     "Please let me know if you can put $500 per month in the expense account so that we can pay for this
research.  My estimate is that we can complete this in about three months.

     A.Arney, January 4, 1999 (rough draft):
     "I understand reviewing the harassment cases, and only want to suggest that you keep an eye out for
those cases that went to court and were won by the defendants, as in my case.
     "Also ... are these the only records available to us?  What about the ratio of complaints / discipline
involving the officers concerned?  I gather that H.P.D. is paranoid about releasing names of officers to
the public, but what about releasing them to a court proceeding?
     "In your letter of June 27, 1998, you mentioned an agreement / document with Dr. Ginandes.  I never
received such a document. ..."

     Arnold T. Phillips, January 13, 1999:
     "The amended complaint has been filed.  We have a court date of November 9, 1999, for trial.  This
date will more than likely be changed because we have not been able to serve two of the officers.  They
are no longer employed by HPD and we will have to get their applications to see if we can track them
through their next of kin listings.  It will take a minimum of 30 days for the City and County to respond
to our requests for this information.
     "It would be helpful if you would send me a list of all of your arrests and any convictions plus a list of
treatment by any doctors providing the names and addresses and the dates with an indication of the
condition that you were treated for at those times.  This is information that the defendant are going to
want later so it is appropriate to get it together now so that I can review it.
     "There are approximately 50 harassment cases per week and we only get the names and we are
attempting to contact them through the current phone book.  We will just stay with this until we find the
right combination."

     A.Arney, January 29, 1999:
     “With regards to your letter of 1-13-99, I've come up with what I know of my arrest and medical records.
 Unfortunately, I didn't bring these with me, so I can't be precise about the dates, but the list, at least, is
short.
     "Within five hours of the police incident I was treated at Kaiser (Moanalua) Hospital.  I gave you my
copy of their report, and I believe you still have it.
     "Dr. Ginandes is the only other person who has treated me regarding this incident.  I believe I visited
him about 20 times, but that's just an estimate.
     "When I was injured in 1989, I was diagnosed and treated by chiropractor Scott Ogata (since
deceased), and by Straub Clinic, both in Honolulu.  This was roughly 1990 - 1992.  The full reports are
in storage in Honolulu.
     "I've been arrested four times, only one of which resulted in a "conviction."
       "1) About 1974 I missed payment on a traffic or parking ticket and had to wait while a bench warrant
was served.  A Honolulu sheriff arrested me and took me to court, where I paid the fine.  This was the
only conviction.
       "2) In or about 1986 I was arrested on a DUI charge, but the H.P.D. breathalyzer reading was 0.000,
and I was returned to my vehicle without being charged.
       "3) On or about March 15 1989 I was arrested for cashing a stolen check.  In this case I was set up
by a "friend" (whose girlfriend I'd known longer than he did), who took the money and left Hawaii.  I
wanted to press charges, but H.P.D. discouraged that.  H.P.D., likewise, did not charge me.
       "4) On or about September 26, 1996 I was beaten unconscious, arrested, and charged with
harassment.  This one you know about ... I was found not guilty in court.
     "All of these occurred in Honolulu, and should be on file either at H.P.D. or the Sheriff's office.
     "I trust that H.P.D. has to share these records with us.  In the DUI case I was driving poorly, as I had
dropped a (Burger King) Whopper onto my steering wheel, shift lever, and clutch pedal.  The officer
writing the report tried to get the breathalyzer operator to allow him to write some % of alcohol in, but
she refused to go along.
     "In the stolen check incident, I was really angry about being set up, but the investigator who
interviewed me was quite adamant in insisting that I would be locked up for hours, perhaps days, if I
insisted on making a statement.
     "In any event, if their accounts vary from mine, I want to be prepared to deal with that."
                                                                                                                                                 
      Arnold T. Phillips, March 10, 1999:
      "Presently we are still trying to serve some of the officers they are no longer with the department.  We
have asked for their next of kin information from the employment application to try and get a line on
where they are.
      "The research for other harassment cases is going slow.  We have not found any in 1993 and we are
now going back from 1996.  We have a list of a dozen or so cases which were tried and may be of some
help.  We will know after we talk to the attorneys for those defendants."


                                                   Interrogatories

      Arnold T. Phillips, March 11, 1999:
      "Enclosed are the interrogatories that have been filed by the defendants.  These are written questions
requiring written answers which will be notarized.
      "Please provide me with a draft of your answers to each question.  I will prepare a typed set and return
them to you for your signature and notary.
      "We have thirty days to do this so return them to me asap."
      Attached to this was a handwritten note:  ”also will need your tax returns for last 10 years - if you
don't have them call IRS to get copies - problems?  let me know."

      From the rough draft of my reply - March 22:
      "If there could be worse timing for most this, I don't want to know what it is.  April is tax time in the
U.S. ... I have had zero results trying to call the IRS for assistance or to request forms ... I have about
two dozen "things" to take care of before flying to Alaska to work for Princess again.
      "One of the effects of being beaten on the head is that I have the capacity to handle only one thing at a
time.  As capital is of the essence, I have to prioritize getting back to Alaska.  I am not trying to be
disingenuous about this, or "being a victim," ... I have committed myself to Princess in Alaska this
summer ... I must take care of these obligations.
      "Is this request for tax records a Civil Court requirement, or just requested by the defendants' counsel?
Do the defendants have to produce their tax records for the last ten years?  Is this equal protection under
the law?"

      Interrogatories "... are written questions requiring written answers which will be notarized ... " Now
here is something that U.S. citizens should be aware of - if police officers violate you, and you sue them
in U.S. Civil Court, their attorney will ask you:  where did you go to elementary school?  Who were
your landlords and room-mates for the last 10 years?  What is your employment history (forever)?  
What did you do the day before the incident?  (note that being battered unconscious is referred to as an
"incident," when in reality it screws up your life for years)   May we see your tax returns for the last ten
years?"
      Unfortunately, I sent my copies of the interrogatories to Mr. Phillips along with my answers to them.
What I have is a Xerox copy of the answers, so again we have to infer what the questions were.  And,
as a cover letter politely explained, the City just wanted to get to know who they were dealing with.
      They wanted some background - addresses, room-mates, employment history, periods unaccounted
for (like vacations).  Okay, I could go along with that, if the defendants were being asked the same
questions.
      Arrest reports and / or criminal history?  I had already related this to Mr. Phillips.
     Any previous litigation?
     "On or about March, 1990, I made a claim at the Hawaii Labor Board for injuries sustained while at
work at E Noa Tours.  Fellow employee C. Foote was giving me a piggyback ride (essentially from my
tour vehicle to the office) prior to my signing out.  She grabbed my feet as I was disembarking and
flipped me back onto my shoulders, neck, and head.  Result was:  loss of consciousness; pain for years;
loss of memory;  profound confusion;  inability to handle stress;  disorientation;  inability to handle
finances;  loss of sleep - later too much sleep;  stopped writing;  stopped playing trumpet.
      "This was not a lawsuit, only a claim for medical expenses."
      What substances were ingested the day before the (1996) incident, and the day of the
incident?
      "Day before incident:  perhaps 1 Sudafed or 1/2 Bronkaid prior to playing trumpet.  Probably 1
Steinlager (25 oz) during session ... and perhaps one more at home later.
      "Night of incident:  about 1 (12 oz.) beer per hour while playing billiards ... between 8 - 12 p.m. - total:
4 or 5 beers." (Note: medical studies are consistent in estimating that the human body metabolizes about
one oz. - one beer - of alcohol per hour.  Five beers in four hours does not make one drunk and
disorderly.)
      What happened the night of the incident?
      The reader has already seen my version of that night several times, so there's no sense repeating it here.
      What happened within 48 hours of the incident?
     "I slept massively.  Wendy's daughters came back from staying with their father on the mainland.
      "At work I found that I could not ... handle learning the cook position.  Instead, I was shuffled back to
driving deliveries, which I had wanted to avoid.
      "For the next 48 days I slept and made it to work."
      What (if any) are the continuing effects of the incident?
      "Physical: Face, neck, and shoulder pain - numbness in arms and hands - couldn't play trumpet - lack
of energy.  Initially, I slept unless I was working.  Continuing - as of this date (3-20-99) I don't have the
energy to maintain a job, a creative occupation, a girlfriend, and hobby activities like I did only four
years ago."  (Multiple tasks, not just one or the other.)
      "Mental: It is hard - to this date - to focus on more than one thing at a time ... Could not learn cook
position at Magoo's.  Cannot manage finances well.
      "This incident brought on recurrence of E Noa injuries, especially trauma of head injury ... people lying
about me ... mental confusion ... putting off what is important in my life to set the record straight."
      "Injuries:
        "a) Initially, pain in face (7 on a scale of 10); numbness in hands, arms;  numerous cuts, scrapes,
bruises ... continuing; pain in left shoulder / neck requires painkiller if I'm to sleep (ibuprofen).
        "b) Playing music and writing were not hobbies - they were my majors in college and main interests
in life (see attached resume - #5);  also see Sunbums 1969;  Hawaii Racing News;  documents to be
provided (in storage).  I have not played my trumpet since the day before the "incident" nor written
anything except letters.
      "Social (effects):
        "1) I definitely do not trust officers in H.P.D. anymore.  I do not feel safe on the streets of Honolulu
as long as Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi have license to assault / batter / lie / perhaps shoot.  What if
one of them asks me to sit on a wall again?"
        "2) If other criminals in their (Lopes, Aina, Wingo, Akagi)  income bracket are charged, at least they
have to pay for their own defense.  In this case (and probably others), public employees have assaulted
a member of the public that pays them ... their legal fees are paid by the public ... if they are found
guilty, their fines will be paid by the public ... and they will retain their jobs with the public, probably
receiving raises and bonuses.  This makes me sick, mentally, physically, and socially.  No amount of
therapy, short of a lobotomy, will cure such an aberration of public trust.
      "The disturbance to my life has varied.  At first I was lucky to get by one day at a time.  Later, I
worried that I would not be able to uphold my financial commitments.  Every day since this incident I
have had to face the mental images of Lopes, etc., smirking as they surround me - from my first waking
instant until (if I am lucky) I fall asleep.
          “I keep hoping that Lopes, Aina, Wingo, Akagi - or at least one of them - will break down and tell
the truth.  The longer this process continues, the more I see that they are committed to assault / battery,
deprivation of civil rights, false charges, and perjury.  I cannot see, as a citizen, or as a path to mental
health, that allowing career criminals to prevail in H.P.D. is a viable choice.
 "I understand that honest police officers need some protection, but there must be a watershed where
the public is protected from criminals in office.  I don't mean to carry on, but this weighs on my mind.  
How many innocent people will be assaulted and perjured by these "officers?"  Is it not my duty to blow
the whistle?"

      Obviously, I went on at length about police officers assaulting the citizens who paid them, then having
the same citizens pay for their defense when they were brought to account for their actions.  I was
distraught about the situation, but didn't really know the extent of the citizen / taxpayer burden for the
defense of crimes committed by officers.  I still don't know the full extent of that burden, but it is
nonetheless obvious - when police officers commit crimes against citizens, taxpayers cover the officers'
defense costs, and usually pay for settlements or court awards as well.
                                                                                                            
      Arnold T. Phillips, to "Albert" Arney, April 13, 1999:
      "Please let me know what the status is on the tax returns and do you have any other of the documents
on the attached request for documents?"
      The attached request, called Exhibit "A," included:
      "All documents containing statements or summary of statements taken of or from witnesses and parties
herein. ... Any written statements ... All correspondence, reports, written communications ... All reports,
including investigative reports and expert's report ... All test results ... All photographs, documents, and
exhibits ... All drawings, graphs, maps, plan, or diagram ... copy of your respective Federal Income Tax
Returns for the ten years preceding the incident, for the year of the incident, and for the years following
the incident." (Note, 2004: Now this was a request for 13 years of back tax records.)
      "Copy of medical reports and statements of costs regarding treatment of all injuries you claim to have
suffered as a result of this incident."

      A. Arney, April 21:
      "The tax returns have been ordered - the form states that it may take up to 60 days.  I am curious.  
Are back tax returns required by the court, or do HPD attorneys want them so they can do a hostile
audit?
      "Regarding Exhibit "A," the only documents I have with me are those that you have sent - letters and
the complaint as we filed it, etc.
      "Others may include:
        "Statements by me, Wendy, or security guard Steven (Lauer) to Public Defender Debbie Tulang
and / or Mr. Cluney at the Police Commission.
        "Mr. Saunders.
        "a. Initial photo taken when I was "booked" at H.P.D.  b. Photos by Mr. Cluney at Police Commission
two days after the incident.
        "Kaiser Moanalua Hospital and Dr. Ginandes.
      "I have none of these with me."

      I had been offended by the interrogatories, feeling that most of the personal information was irrelevant
to the incident, and invasive of my privacy.  Not realizing that this request for documents would be for
our Exhibit A, I associated it with the interrogatories, and was offended again.  It had been frustrating
and exhausting to finish answering the interrogatories while I prepared to leave for Alaska, and now they
wanted more, it seemed.
      It was to get worse.  Mr. Phillips called me on the phone one night, almost in a state of shock.  The
City had given him a copy of my criminal record, he said, and it was a couple of inches thick.   It
included theft, forgery, domestic violence, harassment over the phone, and so on. For the most part, I
had no idea what he was talking about, but to say that Phillips was upset would be putting it mildly.  I
did my best to calm him, saying that except for the traffic ticket, I had no criminal record.  He said that
he would send the documents to me a.s.a.p., and I reminded him that I would be leaving for Alaska
within the week.  The package of documents arrived the day before I left, along with a letter asking for
explanations of the situations.

      The packet that the City had given Mr. Phillips was indeed about two inches thick, but half of it was
information about HPD booking procedures, and a copy of the entire (? ) Police Commission
investigation (interviews, medical reports, etc.).  The rest included records - including 13 incident
reports- of just about every time  I had had contact with HPD, including reports of lost cell phones, and
a statement I had made  (to police) after Wendy and I were hit by a car while crossing a street.  Five of
the reports involved a former room-mate and her abusive boyfriend, and included calls by me when he
broke my taxi windshield, and later when he called me on the phone and threatened my life.
      One report officially listed me as a witness to a Waikiki purse snatching - which was true - although
during the incident HPD had surrounded me, and allowed the thief to escape.                                        
      In my January letter to Mr. Phillips I'd expressed concern that HPD reports about the stolen check
arrest and the DWE (Driving While Eating) arrest might vary from my versions, and it turned out that
they certainly did.  The officer - Corcoran - who arrested me in the check incident alleged that when he
told me that he wanted to talk to me about a check, I instantly said, "The check isn't stolen," when in
fact Corcoran was the one who broached the subject.  Corcoran also claimed that I told him that I
received the check from a friend named Alfred Kim, that I didn't know where Kim lived, and that Kim
had given me the check because he owed me money.  Actually, we had approached the matter in the
reverse order, with me telling Corcoran that I had received the check from a friend who owed me
money, and that it was already written out except for who it was made out to.  When Corcoran asked
me who had given me the check I stated that it was Alvin (not Alfred) Kim. Corcoran seemed taken
aback by this.  He stopped asking me questions, and when other officers arrived, Corcoran faded from
sight and had no further interaction with me.
      Several hours later I was interviewed by Detective Tanaka, who reported, "After discussing his rights,
he (I ) decided not to afford any written and / or taped statement without consulting a lawyer.  He then
signed the HPD-81 Form indicating his desire after which our meeting was terminated."
      From my reply to Mr. Phillips:  "I do not agree with Dt. Tanaka's version of my interview.  By this
time (especially after sitting in a jail cell for hours) I was thoroughly angry with Kim for setting me up,
and I was extremely desirous of making a statement.  I wanted to press charges on Kim.  The detective
said that they would have to locate a public defender, and since this was Friday night I might have to
wait until Monday A.M.  Also, he couldn't find tape for his recorder, etc.   I was totally willing to make
a statement - orally, or in writing - without a lawyer.
      "We went over this for about half an hour - if I wanted to make a statement I'd have to remain locked
up for hours, perhaps days.  If I declined to make a statement, I would be released right away.  I finally
gave in, "declined" to make a statement, and was set free.
      "Kim called me on the phone a few days later.  He said that his friend at the station had called him
about the situation, and that I didn't have to worry. ..."
      Conspicuous by its absence was the 1986 DUI / DWE arrest report.  I have been informed that HPD
policy is that if an arrestee was not found guilty of the crime he was arrested for, the arrest is purged
from the official record.  If that was the case, the stolen check arrest and the harassment arrest should
have been purged too, but there they were.

      Reviewing and explaining these incidents wasn't too traumatic, although I was in the position of being
an oddball at the Princess Tours housing facility.  Everybody else was making new friends, finding old
friends, and looking forward to having fun at their summer jobs, and I was cloistered at isolated tables,
writing secretive letters.  It was interesting to see parts of my life documented from a viewpoint different
from mine, and I kept wondering if reporting a lost cell phone or chasing a purse snatcher were really
classified as one's criminal history.
      "In fact," I wrote to Mr. Phillips on May 2, "in some instances I was pleasantly surprised, as I wasn't
sure if I should bring up certain subjects, or would have to 'fish' for documents.  Most of these reports
are refreshingly accurate and honest - some, unfortunately, are not.  I think that further 'hard' evidence
(such as recorded 911 calls) will be in my favor, as I will explain below."  
      Reviewing the arrest reports written by the officers who beat me, and their later statements to the
Police Commission, though, was disturbing.
     To Mr. Phillips: "It is upsetting - and angers me - to read (or hear) lies about myself ... I am going to
have to move the statements of Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi to a back burner and deal with the more
truthful reports first.  For now, I think that if you compare their statements to those made to the Police
Commission, and at the trial, you will find significant differences.
      "You might try to view the original photos that are so poorly copied on pages 16, 36, and 37.  If these
photos were properly taken they should show abrasions to the face, arms, mid-section, and knee.  As
they exist, these copies are primarily evidence that someone at HPD doesn't know how to set the
contrast on a copy machine.  One can barely tell that the person in the 'mug' is Caucasian, let alone
which Caucasian or what happened to him."

     In order to stay on the main subject as much as possible, I have barely touched on my answers to the
bulk of the HPD incident reports.  If anyone is curious about the stolen check incident, the room-mate /
abusive boyfriend episode, the Waikiki purse snatching chase, or anything that appears on this site,
please contact me through my E-mail - anachronal@hotmail.com.

      I finally had copies of the officers' statements about me and the incident.  These were the original
incident reports from September 26, 1996, and the officers' statements to the Police Commission, and
did not include the December 1996 trial testimony.  What follows now is my answer / review to Mr.
Phillips.  The page numbers 1-8 are from the incident reports, and pages 39-49 are from the larger 173
page collection that the City gave to Mr. Phillips.

      A. Arney, May 12, 1999:     
      "Arnold,
     "As I've said, it's difficult to review these HPD allegations.  Aside from getting the time, place, and
names correct, they proceeded to concoct a fictitious story.
      "I have (below) constructed a rough time line, looking moment by moment at the officers' different
versions of how the scene developed.  There are some terms that are obviously identical, as if they
agreed on what to say, and what the story was to be.  Other statements and versions vary, and some
don't match at all.  It's obvious to me that this is because they aren't reporting an incident they saw,
they're trying to remember a story they contrived
      "The two versions I have to work with are 1) the initial report (96-372-203) of 9-26-96, and  2) the
interviews on 1-2-97, 3-11-97, and 3-12-97 by the Police Commission.  If you have a transcript of the
trial, I'm sure you'll find a few more variations in their statements.  Understand that I am reviewing their
stories; at no time do I mean to concur with their allegations, beyond the names, time, and place.  I may
include notes to point out contradictions or my observations, and these too are not to imply that I agree
with the officers' stories.
                                                                                                           
                   Allege (American Heritage Dictionary): to assert without proof.

                             Time Line of Alleged Incident; HPD 96-372-203:


      Lopes p.6:  Sent via dispatch ... argument ... at the above location ... 0034 hours ... arrived in the area
at the same time
      p.44:  We got sent down to River and Nimitz
      Akagi  p.8:  At about 0034 hours ... sent to Nimitz Hwy. and River St. ... via dispatch ... arrived at
0034 hours
      p.39:  We were sent via dispatch ... to Nimitz and River St. ... proceeded down there ...
      Aina  p.5:  Sent via dispatch to area of Nimitz Hwy. and River Street ... arrived at 0034 hours
      p.48:  Sent to River and Nimitz to assist ... Lopes and Akagi...
      Wingo p.3:  At 0034 hours I assisted (in an argument type case that resulted in a harassment case) ...
0035 hours arrived.
      Note (Arney):  Lopes, Aina, and Akagi allege that they were sent via dispatch; Wingo was not.  All
officers "dispatched" arrived at the same time they were sent.  I contend that:  there was no 911 call and
no dispatch.  All of the above officers were in the park (parking lot), which is why they were "sent" at
the same time that they arrived.  Furthermore, Wendy and I were not arguing at Nimitz and River, we
were walking along Nimitz, from Marin Towers toward Aiea - proceeding in the Ewa direction.
Recording of 911 call should confirm that.                                                                            
      Lopes p.6:  While checking the area I observed (the female)  ... and Arney ... walking Kokohead
bound on Nimitz. I stopped the couple ... separated (the female) from Arney ... was going to speak to
Arney...  (the female) went with Akagi. (2004 - Wendy's last name has been omitted - by me - for her
protection)
      p.44:  We pulled up, me and officer Akagi ... and we separated the two
      Akagi p.8:  Upon my arrival at the scene I observed a female hanging onto a ... male ... arguing and
yelling at each other             
      p.39: First we didn't find anything.  Then ... I had noticed a male and a female walking on Nimitz,
Kokohead bound ... female hanging onto the male ... we pulled them over to the sidewalk ... I wen'
separate ... I told the female to come with me...
      Note (Arney):  I believe that Lopes and Akagi testified that they were riding together in the same car.  
Somehow, they both "observed" us going "Kokohead bound," which is exactly opposite of the (Ewa)
direction we were actually going.
      Wendy and I were not actually "on" Nimitz Hwy., either.  We were on the sidewalk already
(having just crossed Nuuanu Stream), and could not be "pulled over" to the sidewalk.
      Lopes, p.6:  Upon speaking to the two, I detected a strong odor of ... alcoholic beverage from their
breats (sic) ... both parties were very sweaty
      p.46: ... he had a strong odor of alcohol ... she had a strong odor ... you could tell she was intoxicated
and I believe that's what the argument was about
      Akagi, p.8:  I could detect an odor of alcohol ... from both parties
      p. 42:  I could smell it (alcohol) from both parties
      Aina,  p.5:  detected a strong odor of alcohol
      p.49: ... he was really drunk
      Wingo, p.4:  I could detect the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage ...
      Note (Arney):  Please observe the repeated use of "strong odor of alcohol," which itself sounds like
buzzwords calculated to draw negative reactions from the gallery.  Lopes, Akagi, Aina, and Wingo are
attempting to provide a motive for my alleged behavior.  See: further references to alcohol and drinking
below.
      (Extra note - 2004:  Lopes and Akagi both stated that Wendy and I were separated at the outset -
Wendy going with Akagi, and I with Lopes.  Lopes then alleges that he spoke to both of us and detected
the odor of alcohol.  Lopes did not speak to Wendy at all, and was allegedly soon engaged in a physical
confrontation with me. Akagi dealt exclusively with Wendy, and didn't get close enough to me to smell
anything.)  
      Lopes, p.6:  I asked Arney for his identification ... Arney looked at me and stated 'you want my I.D.,
well, where's your I.D.' ... then used his left hand with a open left palm and pushed me in the chest area
causing me to step back to regain my balance.
      p. 45:  I asked Mr. Arney ... if I could see his I.D. ... he said 'you want to see my I.D.? I want to see
your I.D.' And that's when he just pushed me with his left hand in the chest ... in the chest area, opened
left palm ... I took a step back ...
      Akagi, p.8:  "... heard officer Lopes ask for one I.D. ... Arney then replied by telling officer Lopes if he
had any I.D.  I turned ... and observed Arney push officer Lopes with his left open palm, causing officer
Lopes to take several steps back.
      p. 40:  I said 'calm down,' and began to get her basic information ... Aina and Wingo were in that
parking lot somewhere ... (underlining 2004) ... Lopes asked for his I.D. ... Arney raised his tone of
voice to be ... aggressive ... (I) turned around to see what was going on ... Lopes asked him for his I.D.
... Arney said 'My I.D.? Something to that effect.  'Where's your I.D.?'  ... and gave him a shove to his
right chest area. And, took a couple steps back.
      Aina, p.5:  Upon exiting my vehicle ... I observed the male push ... Lopes with a left open palm casing
him to step back to keep his balance. Prior to the incident officer Lopes had requested for the male's
identification.
      p. 48:  When I first arrived I seen Mr. Arney ... speaking to officer Lopes ... Upon exiting my vehicle I
heard officer Lopes request for Mr. Arney's identification card.  Mr. Arney then ... demanding that he
see officer Lopes' I.D. card. He was very insistent on that ... see his identification ... Arney ... was very
argumentative ... had his fist clenched at his side ... in an aggressive stance ... I seen Mr. Arney shove
officer Lopes with his left hand, causing him to take a couple steps back to keep his balance.
      Wingo, p.3:  Arney was standing ... in an aggressive stance with his fists clenched at his sides ... yelling
... in a loud boisterous manner ... demanding to see officer Lopes' identification. I was about five feet
from Lopes/Arney when I saw Arney shove Lopes ... with left open palm ... causing Lopes to take a
couple of steps backwards to regain his balance ... shoved on right chest area ...
      Note (Arney):  In Lopes' versions, this was a pretty swift "attack."   He saw no clenched fists, or
aggressive stance, and was not yelled at. He apparently was taken swiftly by surprise.
 Akagi, in his first report, heard me "tell Lopes if he had any I.D.", and barely had time to turn from
Wendy to observe the alleged push.  In the 1-02-97 version Akagi has time to try to calm Wendy,
Wingo and Aina are in the parking lot somewhere (not on the scene), Lopes has to ask me twice for my
I.D. while I raise my voice aggressively.  Again, Lopes is surprised, despite the warning sign.                  
        Aina observed the alleged push (the first time) upon exiting his vehicle, and doesn't define where
he heard the I.D. request (Lopes').  Aina must have moved with lightning speed to avoid detection by
Akagi, park and exit from his vehicle, hear the I.D. request, and get within five feet of Lopes and me.  
In his 3-12-97 version, Aina gives himself a little more time, and I have time to be insistent about seeing
Lopes' I.D. (card?), clench my fists, and get into an aggressive stance.  Again, Lopes misses all cues and
is pushed off balance.
      Wingo, too, slips past Akagi and gets within five feet of the action: even though (he says) I was
standing two feet in front of Lopes when Wingo arrived, yelling in a "loud boisterous manner," with both
fists clenched, Lopes is caught off guard.
      Notice the repetition - almost verbatim - of "left hand, open palm."  I imagine that they practiced that a
lot in rehearsal.  Likewise, they all "saw" Lopes take steps back "to regain his balance."                 


      Lopes, p.7:  After Arney pushed me and I regained my balance, I pushed Arney, causing him to step
back and sit on a tile wall that was behind him.  He was then placed under arrest by officer Wingo ...
      p. 45:  I took a step back ... and ... reacted by pushing him back ... he kind of took a step back and
sat down on the wall.  (Aina and Wingo) just pulled up right when it happened.
 Akagi, p. 8:  Arney was then subdued.
      p. 40: ..by that time, officer Lopes and I think officer Aina was over there already and they sat 'em on
the wall. They had 'em on the wall when I turned back around.
Aina, p.5: ( No mention of wall, or push by Lopes.)
      p. 49: ..at which time (after Lopes "was pushed")  myself and officer Wingo, we then rushed over and
detained Mr. Arney.
      Wingo, p. 4:  After Arney shoved officer Lopes, myself and officer Lopes directed Arney to the wall
behind Arney. I instructed Arney to remain sitting...
      Note (Arney):  Despite the keen eyesight that "saw" the left hand open palm, none of the other officers
seem to have seen officer Lopes "push me back," or that I "kind of" sat on the wall, or whether or not I
got up again to be "subdued."  Akagi thought that Lopes and Aina "had 'em on the wall."  Aina claimed
that he and Wingo "rushed in" and detained me.  Wingo ... said it was he and officer Lopes who
"directed" me to the wall.
      Lopes, p. 7: Arney ... was then placed under arrest by officer Wingo.
      p. 46: .. right after he pushed me, officer Wingo came around with officer Aina and we handcuffed
him right there, sat him on the wall.
      Akagi, p. 8:  (No mention of wall, handcuffs.)
      p. 41:  After that I got the information from the female and Mr. Arney. Arney ... was refusing to give
information or cooperation ... after attempting to get all the information, he refused.  At that time he was
handcuffed. (Q: Was he still sitting down when he was handcuffed?)  Akagi: Yeah.
      Aina, p. 5:  Arney was arrested by officer Wingo.  (No mention of wall, handcuffs)
      p. 49: Officer Wingo ... handcuffed Mr. Arney, and we had him sit down ... kept standing up as he
was handcuffed.  (Q: Was he handcuffed while sitting down?)  Aina: Yes, he was.
Wingo, p. 4:  (No mention of wall or handcuffs.)
      Note (Arney):  Originally, none of the officers mentioned a handcuff scene.  As they related it months
later, Lopes said that he, Aina, and Wingo did it smoothly and early, then sat me down.  Akagi "recalls"
a long drawn out scene trying (?) to get information before I was handcuffed sitting down.  Aina can't
seem to remember if I was up, down, or in between.
      *(Extra note, 2004:  Lopes already said several times that he pushed me and I kind of sat on the
wall, and here he's saying that I was handcuffed, then they sat me onto the wall. Akagi says that I
refused to give information, but my basic information was on the arrest report.  He doesn't relate that he
had to get the information from Wendy, because I was unconscious.
      The allegation by Lopes, Aina, and Akagi that they were "sent via dispatch" is something that begs for
confirmation.  Almost all of the other incident reports - like reporting missing cell phones, or the broken
taxi window - started with "sent via dispatch," and it is so common a phrase with HPD, and apparently
accepted as true, that Lopes, Aina, and Akagi were never checked on it.  As I have mentioned earlier,
Wendy and I were walking along Nimitz, not standing in place having an argument.  If someone had
called 911 when we were passing Nuuanu Stream and / or the Aala Parking lot, it would have taken
some time for the officers to get there, as Akagi related on page 39 of the total document, or page 21 of
the Police Commission report:
      Akagi:  "This incident started while we was on regular patrol.  We were sent via dispatch to a female
and a male arguing near Nimitz and River Street.  And, from there, we proceeded down there to
investigate what was going on."
      Question: "And, what did you first observe when you first arrived?"
      Akagi: "Well, when I first arrived over there, I observed, first we didn't find anything, at first.  Then,
as we were searching more, I noticed a male and a female walking on Nimitz ...
      According to Akagi, it took a while for him and Lopes to get to the scene and locate us.  Compare this
to the other reports; "sent via dispatch ... at 0034 hours ... arrived at the same time" ...  "sent via
dispatch ... at 0034 hours ... arrived at 0034 hours"   "at 0034 hours I assisted ... 0035 hours I arrived"
      Again, Lopes is the only one to relate that he pushed me "back" - "After ... I regained my balance ...
causing him to step back and sit on a tile wall that was behind him."  In all of the other officers'
accounts this part of the "action" was totally missed. )

      More from my May 12 letter:
      "Well, I apologize for the poor quality of this.  I realize that you can do a comparative analysis of these
allegations yourself - I just feel compelled to start picking these stories apart.
      "Obviously, it's far better to have an independent eyewitness, such as the security guard, whose
testimony about the early moments of this incident clearly shows that the officers aren't being honest.  If
there was a 911 call, that's no big deal, but if there was not, and no dispatch, then Lopes, Aina, and
Akagi are caught in their first lie.
      "It's interesting that HPD policy doesn't include a breathalyzer test for someone so strongly
characterized as drunk and disorderly.  I'm sure that a BAC test would have shown very little alcohol in
me; as I've stated, I had 4-5 beers in a four hour period.  As I understand it, the human body
metabolizes about one oz. of alcohol per hour (one shot, or one beer) ... this would have placed me in a
fairly lucid state, and would not have produced any "strong odor."
      "I'm not being misleading about this.  I don't like to be drunk, I'm old enough to drink moderately and
avoid getting disorderly, and I was not drunk or disorderly on the night of the incident.  Wendy has
Hepatitis B, and essentially avoids alcohol.  Her extremely moderate consumption of a wine and a
Kahlua milk neither made her drunk nor gave her any "strong odor."  We drank that night because we
were shooting pool at bars, and you can't monopolize an establishment's pool table for a few hours
without contributing something to their business.  The argument between Wendy and me had nothing to
do with drinking.
      "I don't agree, either, with the current trend of blaming alcohol or drugs (or the devil, for that matter)
for an individual's behavior.  Nothing has ever made me forget right or wrong, or made me lose control.  
I am responsible for my actions.  I was not drunk and disorderly.  Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi are
lying.
      "Arnold, I have to take my road test and head down to Denali.  I'll try to mail this this afternoon, &
continue later. ..."

      Arnold T. Phillips, June 7, 1999:
      "Through an investigator we have located Steven Lauer.  He is living in South Carolina. I have a phone
number and will be contacting him be phone.  It is best that we travel there and take his deposition I
think that the best time will be early October if this changes I will let you know.  As it looks unless he
says something different we will probably have to go there."

      This was hardly good news.  What had happened to "I would like to have an opportunity to get
statements from all witnesses when we are still in the investigation,” from March 1997?  I had given
Mr. Phillips Lauer's pager number - and, for reference, Ms. Tulang's phone number - in February,
1997.  Now - more than two years later - Phillips had finally located my primary trial witness, half an
ocean and one continent away?!  Despite my shock, I tried not to be too critical ...

      A.Arney, July 6, 1999:
      "It's good to hear that you have located Steven Lauer.  A visit to South Carolina sounds expensive, but
I'll try to be prepared.
      "The IRS writes that they have lost or destroyed information on my tax returns prior to 1990; I’m still
waiting to hear from them regarding subsequent years.  Just what is the time limit for getting this in?  I'm
sure most of my records are in storage in Honolulu.  I'm curious as to who is requesting these (tax
returns), the court or the city attorneys.  Do Lopes, etc. also have to produce theirs?
      "Also curious - has Aina come up with another trial?  Any luck locating Wingo?
      "As always, my progress is slowest in the finance / time category.  If the court date gets pushed back,
that's fine with me."   (2004 - A statement I was to regret.)

      Arnold T. Phillips, August 10, 1999:
      "In response to your letter of July 6th ... The tax returns we will need to establish the loss of earnings.  
There is no way we can resist this information being turned over.
      "The trial for Aina comes up on September 8th.  I will keep you posted.
      "The deposition from Lauer is critical.  I will talk to him first and then we will need to take a video
deposition which will mean that we will not have to bring him in for trial.
      "The trial date will probably be moved and end up during the fall of 2000.  I want to try to at that time.
      "How are you doing with your thoughts and emotions, by that, I mean that I want you to follow-up on
seeing if there are any lingering psychological results of the incident?"

      Ahh.  So ... The back tax records were being requested by Mr. Phillips.  I didn't quite get this at the
time.

      A. Arney, September 10, 1999:
      "I am enclosing all the tax records available at this time.  As you can see, the IRS record seems to stop
at 1990.  My concern was not because I have anything to hide, but that these documents might be lost
in time.  After all, the IRS only advises saving files for three years, whereas the city attorneys are asking
for thirteen years back records.  In any event, there is no way they are going to establish loss of
earnings, as I will explain below.
      "You have twice mentioned that "we" will need to go to S. Carolina to take Lauer's deposition.  Does
that mean me?  I'll need to know this so I can take time off from work.
      "A loss of earnings strategy might have been viable after my 1989 injury, as my income was cut in half
when I fell from tour driving to pizza delivery.  In the 1996 police beating case, though, it will be a lost
cause.  As you can see, I essentially had no taxable income in 1995-96, whereas now I'm making more
money than ever before.  That, however, is because 1)  I am determined to bring Lopes, etc., to justice,
2)  I am equally determined to pay back all the debts from my taxi years, and 3)  I am not (yet) devoting
half of my time to playing music and writing, which was my chosen lifetime / career commitment prior
to these (1989 and 1996) disasters.
      "I think the tack to take is that I was recovering from the 1989 injury when the HPD officers attacked
me, and they delayed that recovery.  In analogy ... if I had been forced underwater in 1989, at least I
was coming up for a few breaths of air by 1996.  Or, if the 1989 injury had been to my legs, I was still
limping in 1996, but at least off crutches.  Mental injuries are harder to define, but if we can present
consistent aspects of my life, that should be more viable than tax records.
      .....
      "Until September 1989 I had a predictable and productive daily routine:  I would end my day job as
early as possible, then go to the U.H. library to write, or a rehearsal spot to play my trumpet.  I was able
to support myself comfortably and still save energy for my creative endeavors.  That is the standard I
consider a normal life (for me); I won't consider myself “recovered" until I can again work on creative
projects.
      "By September 1996 I had at least stabilized my income and was again practicing my trumpet
regularly.  The night before the attack by Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi I spent several hours working
on exercises and songs ... I have not played since.  My writing routine hadn't progressed as well, but I
had finished several poems and a personal account of surviving Hurricane Iniki.  The only writing I've
done since Sept. 1996 has been about this HPD case - mostly to you.  My intention is to pick myself up
one more time, get my life back on track, and be a productive person again.  I mean productive in the
sense of creative output, not monetary acquisition.  If making money had been an ambition in my life, I
would have done things differently thirty years ago.
      "In terms of lingering psychological effects:
      "There is no doubt that my mind works much slower than it did before these injuries.  Whereas I used
to be able to listen to every individual in a (musical) group, and weave interconnecting melody lines, or
hold entire stories, with settings, characters, and conversations in my mind  (note, 2004: this while
performing live, or driving and narrating tours),  now I handle things one step at a time, at 1 m.p.h.   I
drive from point A to point B and hope that nothing distracts me.
      "While I expect that eventually I will have the financial space to return to the arts, I have no idea what
my vision will be like at that time.  An artist has to be able to tap into his subconscious mind as a pool of
clear, life-giving water.  If I try to dip into my mind, I can't get past Lopes, Aina, Akagi, and Wingo
polluting the surface.  If I close my eyes, in search of a song in my heart, I see Lopes jeering at me, as
my head is snapped by an unseen HPD officer.  That is the only song, the only poem I hear now:
Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi are criminals.  HPD, and the Police Commission have no business
protecting criminals. (Underlining is original: 9-10-99)
      .....
      "...To further think that this is all o.k. with the Police Commission, the courts, and the public, I lose
my faith in human beings ... the Hawaiian and American people.  Besides being in the arts, I was a
student government "nerd" in high school. I was class president every year until 7th grade, and was
nominated and ran for office every year through graduation.  I was one of those (now I think: fools)
who truly believed that our government was by and for the people.
      "After living in Hawaii for 35 years, and working in high risk jobs such as pizza delivery and taxi
driving, with no problems, I no longer feel safe on the streets of Honolulu, because of HPD.  I consider
"the incident" an attack on U.S. laws.  Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi set out to prove to me that they
could do whatever they wanted - they didn't have to account to anybody, and there was nothing I could
do about it.  I do not expect to rest or feel safe as long as they are in "law enforcement" positions."
                                                                                                             
      Arnold T. Phillips, September 24, 1999 (to "Albert"):
      "You will not have to come to SC for the deposition.  I think that I will get it out of the way in October.
      "You need to show some damage.  If there are no loss of earnings then we have to have a medical
professional treat you for the lack of creativity and mental slowness which you mention.  If you can get
someone to treat you there then we can use them.
      "The jury will want to see some damage or they will think that this just a personal matter.  Let me
know how your efforts go ..."

      I didn't expect that we would be able to prove much damage, or show direct links to the police beating.
 My experiences seeking treatment after the injury at E Noa tours had made me pretty skeptical - the
medical literature I had collected at that time said that even if there was no physical evidence of brain
damage, the consequences of head injuries could be devastating and long lasting.  There had also
seemed to be a great reluctance on the part of medical professionals to get involved in any litigation.
Even though in 1990 I was only trying to get my treatment paid by workmen's compensation insurance,
the first thing I was told by one doctor was, "I can't give you disability."  This was before he had even
interviewed me, let alone done any tests.
      On the other hand, I was starting to realize that I was carrying the memories and visual images of the
beating, and the trial, every waking moment of my life.  Whether I was training to get my Commercial
Drivers License, driving and narrating tours, hiking in a gorgeous national park, or just talking with
co-workers, I was visualizing and cursing those police officers at the same time.  This was a tremendous
drain - on my energy, if nothing else and it made it almost impossible to socialize.  Talking with
established friends wasn't too bad, but forming any kind of new relationship was out of the question.  
Sleep was achieved by eating a massive meal just before bedtime.  At least I was able to sleep.
     The location in Alaska was too remote a location to seek out any kind of help for this, but my winter job
was in Colorado, driving a city bus.  I started to look around for any "medical professional"  that might
be able to help, or refer me to someone, not so much to get proof of damages for Mr. Phillips, but to
drive these demons from my head.

      Arnold T. Phillips, October 4, 1999 (to "Albert"):
      "The C&C wants to take your deposition and you need to let me know you schedule for possibility of
coming this way.  They have asked me for dates and you need to provide me w this information. They
are late on the production of documents and this is going to effect the trial date.
      "The first deposition I want is the deposition of Lauer and he is in SC, but I need information from the
County like the arrest reports for his deposition.
      "There is a possibility that I will take Lauer's deposition in October.  If that is firmed up I will let you
know."  

      A.Arney, October 17, 1999:
      "I hope to be in Honolulu the week of Thanksgiving ... If the city wants a deposition it looks like that
will be their best opportunity (Nov. 22-28).
      "Please keep in mind - when you question Lauer - that all of the officers' accounts can be questioned
at some point or other. ... in his statement to the Police Commission Akagi said that Wendy was
'hysterical ... screaming.'  Of course, he didn't say that until Lauer and I had both testified that we could
hear her screaming.  How does Lauer follow up on this?  Actually, Wendy didn't start screaming until
the officers started beating me.  Etc., etc.
      "I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to keep getting these letters addressed to Albert.  Please delete
that from your file, or computer bank, or secretary's brain cells, or whatever, and fill in my correct first
name:  ALFRED.  This is not an ego "thing" (although I am proud to be named after my ancestor); I
have heard of lawsuits failing because of incorrect punctuation.  It's been almost three years, now.
      "...I am trying to find a medical professional to advise, if not treat me, but America seems to be pretty
much in the dark ages when it comes to brain trauma.  When I sought treatment after the 1989 injury,
the top psychiatrists at Kaiser and Straub had nothing to offer.  They told me outright that they knew
nothing about the subject, and could not refer me to anybody in Hawaii."
      (Note - 2004: I had corrected the "Albert" misname when I reviewed our original complaint, and at
least twice in phone conversations, and it was very disheartening to see again and again, especially as my
correct name was on every envelope and letter that I sent to Mr. Phillips.  In retrospect, I can't
remember seeing any psychiatrist at Kaiser for my 1989 injury, but the one at Straub did relate to me
that I would be his first patient suffering from a head injury.  Perhaps he just couldn't refer me to
anyone at Straub - I have since found out that there are indeed brain trauma units in Hawaii.)

       I was in Honolulu November 20 - 28, primarily to give my deposition, and to search through my
locker, looking in particular for the documents and records that Mr. Phillips and the city were asking
for. The date and time of the deposition had not been arranged yet, so one of the first things I did was to
find a friend who was willing to let me use his cell phone 24 hours a day, and I called Mr. Phillips to
confirm that I was in town, and to leave the phone number with his message service.  I called in daily to
repeat the message and let him know that I was standing by.  He finally called late in the afternoon of
the 22nd, and informed me that the city wanted to take my deposition the very next morning, if I could
make it at 10 a.m.  I said yes, I could.  He wanted me to review some documents that night so I would
be prepared, and we arranged to meet so he could give them to me.
       It turned out that the documents were the same ones that Mr. Phillips had sent in the spring, with a
few additional pages of the city attorney's response to our request for documents.  There were the
defendant officers' incident / arrest reports, their Police Commission interviews, the HPD policies and
procedures, and reports of most of my interactions with HPD.
      Mr. Phillips wanted to meet with me the next morning so he could prepare me for the deposition.  We
agreed to meet at a downtown restaurant at 8 a.m.


                                          My Deposition:  Tuesday, November 23, 1999

      Mr. Phillips did not show up the next morning until about 9:25 a.m.  He looked rather dragged out, or
under the weather, or hung over.  We had a brief conference over a hurried cup of coffee - I was eager
to engage the enemy in combat, but Phillips advised caution.  The City attorney would try to draw me
out, he said.  My best strategy would be to keep my statements as brief as possible, and answer "yes,
no, or I don't recall" whenever that was appropriate.
      I was not prepared for the deposition, but that was not Mr. Phillips' fault.  True, he could have shown
up earlier, and given me more combat tips, but, as I was to learn, Civil Court is not about bringing
criminals to justice, it is about money.
      Wyeth Matsubara was the City's attorney, representing the defendant officers, the City and County of
Honolulu, and the Honolulu Police Department.  In the early moments of the deposition process I
looked him in the eye, just as I had looked at everyone at the 1996 District Court trial.  Unlike the thugs
he was representing, Mr. Matsubara was there - he was able to look back at me with integrity.  This was
not a staring contest, but an acknowledgement of mutual respect.  Mr. Matsubara reminded me of some
of my friends in high school, my surfing and band buddies.  We proceeded with the interview.
      Mr. Matsubara:  "I am just going to set out a few ground rules, and I'm sure your attorney Mr. Phillips
has already discussed what is going to be happening today.  Just to remind you, you're under oath.  You
were sworn in by the court reporter so anything you say today is as if you were testifying in front of a
judge or jury."
      As in the interrogatories, Mr. Matsubara asked for my full name and Social Security number, and my
addresses and room-mates, back to the date of the "incident."  Why was I here, in Hawaii, now?            
     Answer:  "I have things in storage.  I actually plan on returning ... And I wanted to see you ... This is
where I grew up.  Hawaii is my home."
      Mr. Matsubara; "Are you planning any return trip to Honolulu within the next 6 months?"
      "Well, sorry. I am expected to come back in about a year.  To go to court."
      (Brief interruption.)
      Matsubara:  What is your understanding of when we are going to trial in this matter?"
      "I understood it was supposed to be about now.  And has been postponed approximately a year."
      "I think we were scheduled to go in March as of today."
      "Good."
      Some of the questions were totally irrelevant to a police beating, like, "Why did I move to Hawaii in
1963?"   Well, because I was 13 years old and my father decided that the family would move to Hawaii.
      Why didn't I get a degree when I was at U.H.?   Because I was playing in bands that were traveling
inter-island and it was hard to be on Kaua'i or Maui and continue at the university.
      Mr. Matsubara asked if I had a criminal record.
      Me: "Um, not that I know of.  I failed to pay a parking ticket one time (Note, 2004: this is taken from
the transcript - it should have been recorded as 'on time').  And I was issued a bench warrant.  So I was
guilty of not paying on time."
      "How about prior arrests?"
      "Um, well, that time (for the parking ticket) I was arrested, a Sheriff came to my house.  Another time
      ... I was taken in for a DUI ... I cashed what turned out to be a stolen check for a friend."
      Like HPD, Mr. Matsubara did not acknowledge the false DUI arrest.  He wanted to know more about
the check, though, and about the cross complaints between me and my former room-mate.  He
obviously knew about these already from the interrogatories - his questions barely touched on the
subjects, as if he was testing my credibility, seeing if my answers now matched my answers then.
      When it came to my assertions about mental slowness, and a lack of creativity since the assault, Mr.
Matsubara was quite interested in the dollar amounts, or lack of them.
      Matsubara: "What do you mean by writing?"
      "Write. I used to play music. I used to write stories and articles."
     "What type of stories and articles?"
      "... similar to Bamboo Ridge  publication, local stories about Hawaii, Honolulu.
      "And the articles were (in) Sunbums magazine.  I was the university reporter at that time for their
man on campus. ... It was an independent newspaper, in the late sixties. ... And as long as you're asking,
also Hawaii Racing News, I used to cover some of the motor cross competitions ... only when the
regular person wasn't available ... maybe once or twice."
      "Did you have a certain assignment?  Like, were you asked to cover a certain area or write about
certain events?"
      "Perhaps they would ask me to do a survey, and there were things happening at that time, like Vietnam
demonstrations or sit-ins, so they'd ask me to cover those.  And sometimes there was nothing, or I just
came up with a better story than completing the assignment.  I would choose to do that."
      .....
      Matsubara:  "And you stopped writing for Sun Bums in '72 ... how about after '72, did you write or
publish for any other publications?"
      "Not for publications.  In fact, I decided to work on longer projects.  Which - again - I have, it's
another set of things I'm getting out of my locker.  So several short stories - long stories.  Poems.  So I
was preparing those for publication."
      .....
      "So roughly from 1972 to about 1996 you did your own writing?"
      "Yes."
      "You didn't publish with anybody?"
      "Not yet."
      .....
      "But you didn't have a contract to write any books for ..."
      "No."
      "...Bamboo Ridge?"
      "No."
      "Or any children story books or short story books?"
      "No."
      "So this is all just your own writing then?"
      "Yes."
      "Your own compilations."
      "Yes.
      "And you weren't paid or anything for any of this?"
      "Not yet."
      "So from 1972 to 1996 you didn't publish anything or get any contracts with any companies?"
      "No.  I didn't attempt to. ... The works weren't up to my standards at that point."
      .....                                                                                      
      "Music is one of your hobbies?  What do you do for that?"
      "Well, now I don't - I haven't done it since 1996."
      "You haven't played music at all since 1996?"
      "No.  Um, part of the plan in that would be to return to doing it as a living.  Although it's hard as a
trumpet player.  There are far few jobs playing trumpet nowadays.  So it's been downgraded to a
hobby.  I would prefer it to be a profession."
      "So you said you used to play at various nightclubs or bars, your trumpet?"
           "Well - well, yes."
      "When did you start playing at nightclubs or bars?"
      "Um, 1964."
      "When you were 14?"
      "Yes. Well, I wasn't there every night.  Sometimes they needed a trumpet player. ... Wherever people
needed a trumpet player ... The Pacific Club ... The Renaissance Ball ..."
      "So you said you started playing as a trumpet player in '64?"
      "That is when I started getting paid for it."  
      .....
      "Okay. Do you recall how much you were paid in 1964 for each gig?"
      "Ten dollars."
      "And how long did you play?"
      "Oh, the gig, you mean? Probably four to five hours per night."
      .....
      "When did you start regularly playing for nightclubs?"
      "Um, 1968. Once I was out of the high school band."
      "Were you with a band in 1968?"
      "I believe ... Matrix was the name of the band. ... I was a college student.  So the job was part time.     
... it was my sole source of income."
           "Do you recall any of the nightclubs you played at in 1968?"
 "Well, probably every military nightclub on this island.  Pearl Harbor - Officer and EM clubs.  Same
for Fort Shafter.  Weaver, Schofield. Bellows.  Kaneohe.  Officers, enlisted men's clubs.  The Hilton
Dome.  The Princess Kaiulani.  Various other hotels that used to have ballrooms. ... Jimmy Borges and
Ethel Azama, we toured the islands for several weeks ... about 1974 or 75, maybe earlier."  (I seem to
have missed Matsubara asking specifically about 1968..)
      "When did you stop playing with the band Matrix?"
      "It disbanded ... that was probably about 1969 or 70."
      "And what did you do from 1969?"
      "I was freelancing in bands that were getting together.  I have a list I believe I gave to Mr. Phillips. Or
passed it on to you.  I do have something that is a little orderly than my recollection right now. ...
Harvey Ragsdale band.  And that was ... I was in the Musician's Union, so that was through the Union.  
And he would back up people who came into town.  The Supremes, for example."
      "So you played ..."
      "But that was ... they came in for two nights and then they were gone."
      "And you played back-up for the Supremes?"
      "Yes."
      "What year was that?"
      "Um, I am not sure.  Probably about 1973 or 74."
      .....
      "Okay. Why don't we start back, in 1996 I guess what was the reason for you stopping playing from
1996?"
      "Um, this incident we are here for.  I was assaulted by the police, and unable to continue.  I played, I
practiced at least the day before that happened."
      .....
      "Before '96 what was the last band or group that you were in?"
      "The last good one, I am not sure of the date.  Probably right around the turn of the '80's into the 90's.
A band called Cool Breeze."
      .....
      "So after you left - I assume you were paid for your work with Cool Breeze?"
      "Yes."
      "Do you recall what your pay was?  Were you paid on a nightly basis?  Or salary?"
      "It was just per night.  And I don't recall what it was.  Not much."
      "Not much being?"
      "Not much."
     "Less than $20?"
      "$20, $25 a night."
      "So from '89 or '90 to 1996 were you paid for any work with a band?"
      "Not that I can recall."
      "So you just had to - but you had to keep up your practice?"
      "Yes."
      "So the early '90's was a slow period for live jazz musicians or rock bands?
      "And it continues, yes."
      "Is it -"
      "It's getting worse.  More nightclubs play records, and disks, and tapes.  And fewer musicians are
actually there live."
      "This started about late 80, early 90's?"
      "Middle 70's."
      "Okay.  So the work now is, in terms of live entertainment, is kind of dwindling?"
      "It depends on the outlet.  If you are in the Honolulu Symphony or Royal Hawaiian Band that is a solid
occupation.  I believe even the people who are recording artists in Hawaiian music find it hard to get
continual employment.  They have to have a side job also.  Even the successful ones.  Or well-known
ones, I'd say. ... It's just the condition of music in the United States now.  Not Hawaii in particular."
      "So from '89 or '90 to '96 it was a relatively slow period?"
      .....
      "This is forever.  Since the middle '70's."
      "But since you left Cool Breeze in '89 - '90 to '96, were you trying to get a gig going at nightclubs or
night spots?"
      "Actually, I was just trying to survive financially through the '90's and stay in shape to play music."
      (Note, 2004:  Was Matsubara actually so culturally deprived that he never heard of starving artists, or
jokes about keeping your day job, or was he just doing his job determining monetary values, which
define Civil Court priorities?  In time, I had the same questions about Mr. Phillips.)
                                                                                                                  
      In my answers to the interrogatories I had stated that after the police assault ... " it was hard to focus
on more than one thing at a time - could not learn cook position at Magoo's."  Mr. Matsubara went to
ludicrous lengths inquiring about this:
      Matsubara: "Did you do anything else for Magoo's between 1996 and 1998 besides delivery?"
      "I was attempting to get off the road and into the kitchen.  And be a cook.  So I was starting to be
trained to be one of their cooks. ... In August of 1996."
      .....
     "Okay. Any particular reason?"
     " ... I spent quite a few years driving already.  It's just a dangerous occupation, in terms of being in
places with money, being assaulted and robbed.  I just wanted to, if I wanted to or was to have a
career, or someone to support my trumpet playing, I would prefer to be working as a cook instead of
a driver."
      .....
      "What steps ... were implemented for you to become a cook?  Did they put you in the kitchen?
      "Yes.  And the senior cooks showed you what to do.... Then you have to do it."
      "Was that in 1996?"
      "Yes."
      "Did you have a title when you were in there?"
      "Chicken man."
      "Chicken man?"
      "Uh - huh."
           "Any particular reason why they called you chicken man?"
 "Because you prepare the chicken ... there is also the pizza cook and the sandwich boy."
      .....
      "Did you do anything else besides prep the chicken and the plates?"
      "Yes. Sandwich also, to work on hot and cold sub sandwiches.  I was getting into the pizza aspect but
it was last ... This ended again with the incident ... whatever it was, September of 1996."
      "Oh, okay."
      "Then I had to go back to the road.  Because I was familiar with that.  I couldn't  - I was pretty much
incapable of learning the stuff."
      "Okay. What did you have to do when you made the sandwiches?"
      "Oh, from the beginning you have to get the boxes of loaves from the back.  You have to slice them.  
For cold sandwich you'd put on the mayonnaise and mustard and ingredients.  For the hot ones you
have to prepare - I shouldn't give away their secrets.  You have to prepare the ingredients and put them
in the oven."
      "How do you prepare them?"
      "I am sworn to secrecy."
      .....
      "When you prepare the ingredients you're talking about the meats I guess, like pastrami for instance?"
      .....
      Matsubara:  "How far did you get into making the pizzas?"
      "Cutting out the crust.  And I could make my own.  But in terms of selling something to the customer
at the proper pace with everything balanced properly, um, they didn't let me do that."
       "Why is that?"
     "Um, well, it was discontinued.  Again, to jump ahead.  Once I was beaten I couldn't think fast enough
to handle all these things ... I couldn't function in the kitchen anymore at a commercially viable pace.  In
other words, I couldn't keep up with it. ... It's just a matter of what they want and to do it right.  
Anyone can put mustard on a loaf of bread. But they have the amount they want ... So you have to
learn all of these and be approved to go on to the next step."
      "So and you found it difficult to put the right amount of mustard on the sandwich then?"
      "At the right pace.  It was more a matter of freezing mentally.  If someone ordered a sandwich and a
chicken dinner I couldn't handle it.  I would be lost in between the two tasks."
      "Okay. Then from - So - 1996 you started cooking, and then about when did you stop in the kitchen?"
      "The day after the incident."
      "The day after the incident?"
      "Yes."
      "And in that one day you realized you could not handle the orders?"
      "Well, yes."
      "Okay.  I am a little confused now.  You said you were getting trained in 1996 to make the sandwiches
and the chicken?"
      "That's correct."
      "And you were training to do the pizza.  So you were taking orders at that time as well as having to
complete the whole -"
      "No.  The cashier would take the orders and pass them back to the cooks."  
      "Okay.  So, for instance, at that time you were the only - you said you had just started.  So you were
the only cook back there to prepare all the meals?"  (2004: Where did he get that?)
      "No.  On a busy night they have one on pizzas, one on the sandwiches, and one on the chicken.  On a
slow day you'd have one person doing all three."
      "Okay. What about when you're training?"
      "In that case, well, I was trained enough to handle the chicken.  I was trained enough to work with
someone on sandwiches.  And I was starting to be trained for the pizzas."
      At some point about here Mr. Phillips kicked me, under the table.  I was not answering "yes, no, or I
don't recall ..."
      "So the next day after the incident you went back there, there was at least four cooks in the back?"       
       (2004: And where did he get this?)
      "I don't recall."
      "I am sorry.  At least three?"
      "Two.  At least two."
      "Including yourself?"
      "Yes.  So I was good enough to handle the chicken."
      "So one person could do sandwiches and pizzas?"
      "Yes.  Hopefully."
      "Okay.  And that one night you realized you couldn't handle the orders?"
      "Yes ..."

      I'd related that I had been knocked unconscious one other time in my life.  In September, 1989, a
co-worker at E Noa Tours was giving me a piggyback ride from my tour bus to the office.  When it was
time to disembark, she initially let go of my legs, then for some reason grabbed them again after I had let
go.  I was flipped over backwards and knocked out.  A witness later said that when my head hit the
ground it sounded like a coconut being cracked open.  Of course, Mr. Matsubara wanted to go over this
in depth.
      Mr. Matsubara:  "Let's go over some of your past injuries.  You were describing earlier about your
injury at E Noa Tours. ... Can you tell me what happened?"
      "A co-worker was giving me a piggyback ride and when I tried to get off she apparently held my feet
and I flipped over backwards, and landed on my shoulders and neck and head. ... I said to get off, 'let
me go.' "
      "And then?"
      "Well, she let go of my legs and then she grabbed them again.  When she let go I started to get off, on
my way down she grabbed them and held them up."
      "Do you know why she grabbed your legs again?"
      "I don't want to speculate on that."
      "Okay, that's fair.  Then you said you had fell back onto your shoulders, neck, and head?"
      "Yes."
      "Were you in pain at that time?"
      "Well, I was knocked unconscious then.  When I woke up I was in pain."
      .....
      "When you woke up where were you?"
      "On the parking lot.  On the ground."
      "Do you know either through your own knowledge or someone how long you were unconscious for?"
      "No."
      "When you woke up you said you were in pain.  What kind of pain did you have?"
      "Um, well, pretty extreme pain in the neck and shoulders, and back of the head.  And eyes.  That full
range."
      "Anywhere else?"
      "Well, it was enough.  I was also in shock.  Like everything else was numb."
      "What was the result of your injuries?"
      "Physically?  Socially?  It devastated my life.  I left the job.  Proceeded downhill after the accident."
      "Why did you leave your job?"
      "As I stated earlier, I didn't think I was competent to drive.  I was not remembering things.  I didn't
know what date or month it was.  It extremely distracted me.  Again I have a list of all this.  I even don't
like to remember it now.  It's quite traumatic.  I was in extreme pain for several months, and ..."
      "Profound confusion?"
      "Yes."
      "Inability to handle stress?"
      "Yes."
      "Disorientation?"
      "Yes."  
      "Inability to handle finances?"  Mr. Matsubara was reading directly from my answers to the
interrogatories.
      "Yes."
      "And then later too much sleep?"
      "Yeah."
      "Did you see a physician for, after this accident?"
      "I saw Dr. Ogata.  Who was a chiropractor.  Scott Ogata.  And later I went to Straub."
      "When did you go to Straub?"
      "I'm not sure.  Probably 6 months after this."
      "Okay.  Why didn't you go to a doctor or a hospital that day?"
      "I was confused.  I was not thinking." (Underlining 2004)
      .....
      Matsubara:  "Nobody wanted - "
      "I was sort of in denial it had happened."
      "None of your co-workers offered to go to a doctor and have you checked up?"
      "No."  ( 2004: Actually, the co-worker who flipped me back and caused the injury paid for a
therapeutic massage the very next day)
      "So you didn't go to Straub until 6 months after this incident?"
      "That is a guess.  I am not sure how long."
      "Do you remember who you saw at Straub?"
      "No. The neurologist.  Um, a psychiatrist.  And physical therapy people ..."
      "Did they say what happened to you as a result of that accident?"
      "Well, they did a lot of tests."
      "What kind of tests?"
      "CAT scans.  Brain scans.  Needle tests.  I have no idea what they're called.  A lot of 'em. ... But to
check for whatever it might be, nerve damage, to brain damage."
      "After they did all these, CAT scan, the brain scan, needles, and did an assessment on you what was
your understanding of what was a result of the accident?"
      "They didn't understand mentally what it was.  The psychiatrist said it was not his field and he didn't
know.  And the neurologist said there was no bleeding inside.  And the physical therapists took
two-something years to work out various kinks."
      "So they didn't determine or assess, there was no assessment at that time?"
      "Well, not that I know.  The only thing they agreed on was depression.  Which yes, I was depressed
by that and the physical pains ... told me it was too late to tell about the mental."
      "Why is that?"
      "Brain damage.  Because the tests didn't happen soon enough afterwards."
      "Oh.  You're saying the psychiatrist said it wasn't his field?"
      "That's correct."
      "Did he refer you to another psychiatrist?"
      "No."
      "Did you ask to see another psychiatrist?"
      "I sort of gave up."
      "Why?"
      "I was confused.  They weren't helping me.  Apparently there was nowhere to go. ... I thought Straub
was the best hospital in Hawaii and if they couldn't help me there was no place to go." (underlining 2004)
      "Did you try getting a second opinion or going to another hospital?"
      "No.  I did stay with the physical therapy program.  That did help.  I didn't pursue the psychiatrist
aspect."
      "Why didn't you want to seek out another opinion or going to another assessment?"
      "My mind wasn't working too well.  Possibly I should have." (underlining 2004)
      "I am assuming you went to Straub 6 months after the incident because you were still in pain and still
were confused? ... Like how come you didn't go five months earlier or five months later or three months
later?"  
      "I forget when I went to the chiropractor.  But Dr. Ogata was least effective.  And handled the pain
aspect.  I didn't know - I wasn't aware of the mental things."
      "When did you go to see Dr. Ogata?"
      "I'm not sure exactly when.  I think it was within a month, or three months, thereabouts."
      "And I'm also assuming after you left Straub the symptoms still persisted, you still had the loss of
memory, the loss of consciousness, the depression?"
      "That decreased.  Those symptoms decreased."
      "So you got better then after you saw, went to Straub?"
      "To a degree."
      .....
      Matsubara: "At that time  (when I filed the workmen's comp. claim at E Noa)  you had not gone to any
physician, or any doctor, or psychiatrist before you made the claim then?"
      "Um, well, Dr. Ogata."
      "What did you go - "
       "I am sorry.  I did try to go to Kaiser, but there were problems with that.  (My new job) had a Kaiser
plan, but it (the injury) turned out to be a prior existing condition, and it just didn't work out."
      "When did you first go to Kaiser?"
      "Probably four months after."
      "And why did you go four months after the incident?"
      "For the same reason I went six months.  Problems were persisting."
           "So you went in four months to Kaiser.  How come you just didn't go to Straub at that time?"
 "Because of the financial aspect.  The new company had the Kaiser plan.  And I could afford that.  
But, like I said, there were complications;  I already had the problem."
      "I can understand cost, but didn't you feel it would be in your best interest physically or mentally to go
find out if you're okay?"
      "I don't understand."
      "You said you went to Kaiser and they denied you, because of a different program.  And I asked you
how come you didn't go to Straub after the four months, and you said they were on a different
program."
      (Note, 2004:  I didn't say anything about either Kaiser or Straub having a "different program."  After
several weeks I perceived that Kaiser was giving me the run-around.  I didn't say that Kaiser denied me,
I said that the injury was considered by them to be a prior existing condition.  And was Mr. Phillips
listening to this exchange?  Why was he silent?)
      Me: "Well, it's just the way the insurance works."
      "So at the time in four months you said you felt - you weren't insured by Straub at that time?"
      "I wasn't. ... I paid at Straub.  I paid cash.  Until I won the case."
      "So I am just asking.  I can understand the high cost and fees for medical attention.  But did you not
think or feel it was in your best interest to find out what was, what could have possibly been wrong with
you?  Regardless of the price?"
       (Note, 2004:  Matsubara obviously did not understand the high costs, and obviously never showed up
at a hospital with no money and no insurance.  Contrary to the urban myth that hospitals cannot refuse
someone with a problem, if an individual has no cash or coverage, the hospital finds no problem. When
I said I paid cash, that was up front, and I did not have that kind of cash - thousands of dollars - when I
first went there.)
      Me: "That is why I ended up at Straub."
      "But six months later, right?"
      "Uh huh. Yes."
      "My question - "
      "Why not earlier?"
      "Yes."
      "Because I was hit in the head.  And it, my thinking deteriorated pretty bad.  You know, it was pretty
bad ..."  (underlining 2004)
      "I can understand that."
      (Note, 2004:  Reviewing this, and remembering Leighton Oshima - representing E Noa Tours - asking
similar questions,  I am tempted to call these sanctimonious *&%#@!s out into the real world, and
challenge them to:  TRY IT!!  Being the devil's advocate does not mean that an attorney understands
anything.  Go ahead, Mr. Matsubara ... Mr. Oshima ...?  Why don't you sit passively and let some thug
punch your head until you fall over unconscious? ... Then ask a hospital for help ... without medical
coverage, or money, or social support.  Until you have been there, you do not understand diddley.)
      .....
      Matsubara:  "So when you went to Kaiser - I am just asking.  I don't know if there is an answer.  I am
asking why you did not seek another physician and why did you wait two more months to go to Straub?"
      "I really can't answer that."
      .....
      "...So these, your accident in '89 at E Noa Tours, that never fully - you never fully recovered from
those symptoms?"
      "I would say no. ...  It’s a judgment call.  It's something that - I can't judge it.  I can't remember what
I forgot.  Put it that way.  I don't know if I remembered a hundred percent what I knew before because
I forgot some of it."
      "Okay. And you're saying it's a judgment call on your part because you don't have a medical
documentation for this?"
      "I don't think I said that."
      "Well, I am asking.  Why are you saying it's your judgment call?"
      "It's just hard to pin down."
      "Okay.  Do you have any medical documentation to tell you why or whether you fully recovered?"
      "No."
      "Do you have any medical documentation saying that you did recover?"
      "Only physically - physical therapist.  Mentally, no."
      (Note, 2004:  Unless a medical professional knew me statistically and / or personally before this injury,
how would they know whether I had recovered or not?  I have lived in my head for my entire life ... I
know full well when things are not the same ... when I am not writing or playing music, or being
involved in relationships, things are not normal.)
                                                                                                                  
      Mr. Matsubara moved on - eventually - to the night of the police beating.  As with the earlier subjects,
he questioned every moment from all the angles he could think of.  What time did I wake up that
morning, and what did I do?   It had been a day off, and I couldn't recall anything with certainty before
Wendy and I decided to go downtown and try shooting some pool there, instead of at pool halls.
Matsubara wanted to know which pool halls we had tried earlier.  How did we know that there were
pool tables in bars downtown?  How did we get there?  What color was Wendy's car?  In retrospect,
some of this seems amusing - at the time I thought it was ridiculous.
      Mr. Matsubara:  "How did you know that these bars had pool tables?"
      "I didn't frequent downtown, but I have gone by.  You can look through the door and see a pool table."
      I related that we parked at Marin Towers, met a friend who lived there, and walked downtown.
      Matsubara: "Where did you go first?"
      "Two Jacks Bar."
      "At Two Jacks Bar has a pool table?"
      "Yes.  Well, they did."
      "They don't have a pool table anymore?"
      "I don't know."
      .....                                                                          
      Despite the exhaustive and nitpicking questions, Mr. Matsubara didn't get me to change my version of
what happened from what I have already related several times.  He was curious about why I was sure
Aina was the officer who so agitatedly grabbed his uniform and showed me his name stitched there.
      Matsubara:  "Do you know for sure if officer Aina was the one who was the initial officer came around
and said 'you want to see my ID?'"
      "I'd say 99 percent sure."
      "Why 99 percent sure?"
      "Just one percent for the possibility it might have been somebody else.  I don't think so.  It's just the
impression I have.  I believe it was him."
      (Note, 2004:  The only way I would know this 100% would be to see Aina in person again.  In
retrospect - by process of elimination - of the four officers who filed complaints against me that night,
Aina was the only one who didn't testify at the Dec. 30 trial [even though he was present].  I did see
Lopes, Wingo, and Akagi, and the severely agitated officer - Aina - was not one of them.)
      "When your face was pushed in the officer's chest did you look up to see what his face looked like?"
      "No.  Oh, I couldn't.  My head was being held."
      "Your head was being held in his chest?"
      "Yes."
      "So your head was being held in his chest?"
      "Yes."
      "So it's possible that it could have been a different officer than the first one who came around asking
'you want to see my ID?' "
      "It's possible."

      How did I know that it was Ronald Lopes who said,  "We'll charge him with harassment in case he
makes a complaint."?
      Me:  "When I heard his voice in court then I recognized that (he) is the one that said that."

      As Ms. Lum-Akana had asked in the trial, Mr. Matsubara wondered why I had not complained about
being injured.
      Matsubara:  "When you first got to the police station when you were transported there you didn't
complain of any injuries, did you?"
      "Well, I was in the frame of mind not to make trouble.  So I don't recall really saying anything."
      "But you didn't - "
      "They could see I was bleeding, or beat up.  I didn't have to point it out."
      "But did you complain of any injuries when you got to the holding cell? ... Did you complain of any
injuries when you were in the process of getting the mug shots and getting your fingerprints? ... At any
time did you complain of injuries when you were in the custody of the Honolulu Police Department?"
      (Note, 2004:  I answered 'no' to that question every time, and to this day cannot comprehend why I
would have been expected to complain.  If I was getting chewed up by a pack of dogs, would it do any
good to complain to one of them about it?  And, even if I had complained to one of the officers, do you
really think that they would have honestly reported it, or helped?  They certainly lied and denied any
aggressive action in their Police Commission interviews.)

      Matsubara:  "We will shoot back to the emergency room.  The physicians treated you for the abrasions
to your face and your body and I guess your ear.  Did they say what happened to your ear?"
      "No.  It was cut."
      "Were you in pain at this point in time?"
      "Um, numb and in pain."
      "Where was it in pain?"
 "It was all these things that happened earlier, at the tour company, all were fully returned.  My head
was cloudy and stupid, and my neck and shoulders hurt.  Spine.  Plus the arms and face.  So all this, I
was pretty much in pain.  Except for my feet."
      "So you had the same type of symptoms you had from the E Noa Tour in '89  you feel you had
reactivated?"
      "Essentially, fully returned."
      "Same type of symptoms again now - from this 1996 incident?"
      "Well, at that point.  Again, time has passed, and the immediate pain is gone.  My cheeks aren't sore
any more.  And just to answer that question, because of what they taught me at Straub I knew exercises
and things to aid in recovery.  So, again, if the weather changes, I'll feel pains and things."
      "You feel pain where?"
      "In the neck and shoulder area."
      "Okay.  What is your understanding of the injuries you received from this 1996 incident?"
      "Well, that, again, the things at the neck and shoulder junction definitely didn't improve, I'm sure.  It
worsened whatever was there, added to it.  The muscles tend to tighten up.  The arthritis comes on
because of that ... in particular mental facilities.  That is why I haven't written or played my horn, I
don't have the energy to do that.  And I don't have the ideas  that I used to have.  I wanted to make
albums, do some music writing, finish my - the writings I had been working on. ... And it's like I can sit
in front of the writing, I can pick up my trumpet, but it's basically not there - the energy and the
creativity.
      "And you feel - "
      "And likewise - sorry.  But in terms of being able to handle a lot of things at the same time.  Like at
Magoo's, I had to learn to make these sandwiches, but I couldn't handle the pressure of doing it quickly
... Or doing two things at a time, a lunch and a sandwich ... In terms of music, I could (previously) listen
to musicians in the band or watch the audience and see their reaction, and think about my class
assignment all at the same time.  Now I look at the trumpet and say, well, try to play one note, I can
play one note, but the entire creative universe is not there.  It's a memory, but it's not there."
      "And you feel all this was caused by the 1996 incident with the police?"
      "Well, I could put it another way.  The first one might have put me under water."
      "The first one being?"
     "The first injury at E Noa Tours.  And I was coming back to the surface and the second one pushed
me back under and I am still under.  Pretty close to that same depth."
      "Okay."
      "It's far and away from being above surface, and being back."
      "After this 1996 incident did you try playing your trumpet again?"
      "Um, a bit, just a bit.
      "At first, just because of the pain and stuff, I couldn't even pick it up.  I didn't even try for several
months.  And when I did try, I just didn't have the energy.  Because I would be sort of rebuilding a lot
of stuff.  Physical, and co-ordination-wise.  And mental.
      "And, like I said, I could play one note, I could probably play ten notes, or whatever.  But to play jazz
and things, that is years away."
      Matsubara:  "Okay. You went to the ER that night for your injuries, correct?  Do you remember what
physicians saw you?"
      "No."
      "Did they advise you to go to follow up the next day or two days later to a doctor?"
      "They did suggest that I get x-rays and some kind of scan."
      "Did you do that?"
      "I couldn't afford it. No."
      "Did you do that?"
     "No."
      "Did you follow up with another physician?"
      "No.  I was financially unable to do that."
      "Have you seen any doctors regarding this 1996 incident?"
      "Yes. Dr. Ginandes."
      .....
      "How often did you see Dr. Ginandes?"
      "Once a week ... for a few months. ... I would still be seeing him except I moved up to Alaska,
Colorado."
      "This is Shepard Ginandes, psychiatrist?"
      "That's correct."
      "When did you first see Shepard Ginandes?"
      "I'm not sure.  Somewhere 1997."
      "How did you know how to go to Shepard Ginandes?"
      "Mr. Phillips recommended him."
      "Okay.  So your attorney Mr. Phillips you're referring to?"
      "Yes."
      "Besides Dr. Ginandes was there any other treating physician you went to?"
      "Just recently I found ... somebody who specializes in that, brain trauma recovery.  So I've essentially
set up appointments.  I don't have his name, either. Sorry."
      .....
      "Are you still -  So you're currently not seeing Dr. Ginandes any more?"
      "No."
      "How did you afford to start going to Dr. Ginandes?"
      "I'm not sure I understand that."
     "You said that after the incident with the police officers in 1996 you didn't want to see any physicians
or doctors because you couldn't afford it?"  (Note, 2004:  I didn't say that I didn't want to - merely that I
couldn't afford to. They are not the same.)
      "I owe him.  He (Ginandes) is one of many people I still owe."
      .....
 Matsubara:  "How about in Colorado or Alaska, have you seen any other?"
      "I will be in Colorado.  I finally found him."
      .....
      "Okay.  How about your injuries today from the 1996 incident?  How are they now?"
      "Well, physically, I think I have said that if the weather changes or if I am in a cold place, up in
Colorado, it's pretty consistent pains.  If it's warm weather it's not so bad.
      "Mentally I am quite slow.  I can do one thing at a time, and that's it.  For example, if somebody asks
me a question while I'm driving the bus - this happened last week - if I listen to the question I forget
what the route is.  I fail to make turns, get off route, or something.  Or if I just focus on doing the route
then I can't hear what anyone is saying. ... If two things come up I'll get lost in between them."
      .....
      "Are there any other types of injuries that you're claiming from this 1996 incident that you haven't
discussed with me?"
      "Um, not that I can think of at the moment."
      "So that is all the questions I have."

      I was not as prepared for the deposition as I could have been, mostly because I thought it would be
about the "incident,"  in particular, my version vs. the officers' versions.  I had no problems
remembering the night of the assault, and was confident that my remembrance of the truth would win
out against the officers' attempted recollection of their fiction.  Mr. Matsubara seemed fixated on
whether or not I had been financially successful in my music and writing endeavors, and whether or not I
could prove that I suffered measurable psychological damage as a result of the police beating.  I took as
a fact of life that everyone understood that certain people (artists) go into the arts because that is where
there lives, their loves, and their souls find fulfillment.  If an artist can create and produce his / her
works, that is success;  if they happen to make money at it, or achieve popular acclaim, that is a bonus.
      Mr. Phillips was worried that in revealing the low pay that I received for some gigs, I had lowered my
potential claims for damages ... actually, that is the unfortunate financial state that musicians too often
find themselves in.  I had related that some of my jobs were through the Musician's Union, and those
paid quite well.
      And as for proving mental damage, that - even in the current medical literature that I could find in
university libraries - seemed about as difficult as proving that one had seen a ghost.  If someone had a
hole through their brain, or bleeding inside it, that was considered pretty fair proof of damage, but
thousands of cases recorded symptoms and complaints that indicated psychological changes and damage
that were consistent, but were not accompanied by any physical evidence.  Mr. Phillips and I were to
wrestle over these concepts quite a bit in the succeeding months.
      You will notice that I underlined several comments of mine during the deposition:  "I was confused,
and not thinking ... I was confused - they weren't helping me ...my mind wasn't working too well ... my
thinking deteriorated pretty bad ..."  I am amazed at the popular misconception - particularly by defense
lawyers - that persons suffering from brain trauma should be held responsible for not making logical and
intelligent decisions, like not seeing a doctor right away, or not requesting second opinions.  After my
first injury, I mostly wandered around for weeks, talking to trees - and it wasn't until a dispatcher
informed me that my day's invoice was a month off  (and I was sure that it was September, not
October) that I even had a clue that I was out of whack.  After the police beating, I didn't expect help or
support, and mostly tried to get to work every day.  I didn't even realize that there were intelligent
decisions to be made.
                                                 


      At the deposition, I had been informed that our trial date had been moved back from the fall of 2000 to
March of 2000.  The very next letter from Mr. Phillips indicated that it would be changed once again.

      Arnold T. Phillips, December 8, 1999:
      "Please let me know if November 13, 2000 is a good trial date for you."

      A. Arney, December 20:
      "In response to your last letter, November 13, 2000 will be a good trial date. Hopefully, this will be the
last postponement.
      "I have quite a few questions regarding the situation ...
      "Are we still searching for Steve Lauer?  Arrest record or not, he was quite credible at the first trial.
What about convictions?  I don't mind paying for this research, as long as it's not exorbitant.
      "As I recall, W. Matsubara requested copies of my Sunbums columns and hospital records from
Straub. Did he want more?
      "Did you receive my responses to the Police Commission report, the officers' statements, etc.,  that I
sent you last April?  Were they legible?  I can type them all up, if that will help."

      When I spoke to Mr. Phillips on the day of the deposition, he had mentioned that Lauer had "an arrest
record," although that was as specific as Phillips got.  Was this record for paying a traffic ticket late or
for armed robbery?  One arrest or several?  You know how America is these days - if you do something
once, you have a "history" of doing it.  Was HPD - or the defendants - trying to intimidate Lauer to
keep him from testifying for me?  I certainly had questions.

      Arnold T. Phillips, December 19, 1999:
      "Please let me know how the 'closed head injury' is going.  It is a key factor in the damages in this case
and I want it developed if we are going to use it."

      A. Arney, February 9, 2000:
      "It looks like I will be admitted to the Brain Injury Recovery Program ... There is probably evidence
that I am measurably worse than I was after the Straub exams in 1990 - I guess that is the bad news and
the good news.  Anyway, it will take a little time, but I will keep you posted.
      "I am enclosing a few articles from the Journal of the A.M.A. that indicate what a slippery subject
brain trauma can be.  As you can see, the state of the art is to test a subject prior to and immediately
after a suspected injury.  Unfortunately, I was not in one of these studies, but at least you can see what
the process is.
      "I find it hard to believe that we have to prove that being beaten on the head until one is unconscious is
bad for your health, but, as you can see, the A.M.A. is on our side.  That issue of J.A.M.A. includes
several other pieces on the subject.  There is also a head trauma unit on Oahu that we might want to
check with for further information / backup / expert testimony.  I'm not sure, but I think that they are
either at Leahi or Kaneohe. (Note, 2004: The articles were from the September, 1999 issue of the
Journal of the American Medical Association.  I recommend the entire volume.)
      "When I saw you in November you gave me a (second) set of documents."  (Note, 2004: Reader may
refer to the evening of Nov. 22, 1999, when Mr. Phillips gave me essentially the same set of documents
he had sent in the spring of that year - with a few additional pages containing the city attorney's response
to our request for documents.)  "Although I had already reviewed the initial 174 pages, there were six
pages of  W. Matsubara's responses to our request for documents, included as a preface.  My review of
these is as follows:
      "1) Records ... that pertain to the incident.  No 'memo book entries,' 'radio transmissions,' 'dispatchers
notes,' ... are known to exist."  (Underlining 2004)  "Does Matsubara mean that all records and logs
from that date do not exist, or just those regarding the incident?   This is important because all of the
officers' accounts begin with 'sent via dispatch.'  (2004 - Except Wingo's)  Obviously if HPD logs of that
evening exist, there should be a record somewhere of that "dispatch."  As I've stated earlier, Lopes,
Aina, Wingo, and Akagi are thus caught in their first lie.  And just what is the HPD policy regarding logs,
911 calls, dispatches, etc.?
      "2) I strongly object to 911 calls to police for assistance or to report a crime being defined as
"criminal."  (Note, 2004: Sure enough, my 911 calls to report lost cell phones, purse snatching,
windshield broken by passenger's jealous boyfriend threatening my life, etc., were reported by HPD as
my criminal record.  Per W. Matsubara: 'A copy of the criminal history of the plaintiff - Documents, if
any, responsive to this request are attached") ... It is my understanding that a criminal record only
includes convictions ... not unsubstantiated complaints or arrests. The only "conviction" in all of these
174 pages involves the arrest in 1975 (report # 37064) which came about because I showed up one day
late to pay a traffic ticket. Even though I had the money to pay for it, the DMV insisted on serving a
bench warrant.
      "In my May 2, 1999 letter to you I reviewed 14 police reports that had my name on them. You will
notice that on p. 23, in my conclusion, that in seven (7) of these I called HPD to report a loss or crime.
In five (5) of the instances I was a victim.  Since when is calling 911 or being victimized part of a
criminal record?  My "criminal record" should be only three (3) pages  (report # 37064, pp 104-106).
      "3) 'Record of defendant officers' prior conduct not relevant to the incident.'  These records are
relevant to HPD's failure to discipline (see #9).  Furthermore, any complaints against either party should
be treated equally - i.e. if complaints against me are allowed, all complaints against these officers should
be allowed. Complaint is spelled the same, we are all American citizens, etc... I want to insist on equal
treatment under the law.   (2004 - especially if my reporting crimes was considered a crime...)
      .....
      "5) 'Mug shot of plaintiff.'  As I have stated, the Xerox copies I have are unacceptable, due to the poor
quality of the images.  The original photo should show evidence of blows to the head, multiple minor
abrasions, etc.  I want to insist on that original photo in court.
      .....
     "Per your question last November, I am willing to "bankroll" all of these issues through all of the
appeals necessary - to the Supreme Court, if we have to go that far.  It is my understanding that our
complaint includes not only assault and battery in 1996, but also perjury and conspiracy.  The more I
look at the Police Commission report, the more it looks like they are involved in obstruction of justice.
      "You also mentioned that S. Lauer seems to have acquired an arrest record.  Did this come about after
he testified in my favor in 1996?  Did officers start harassing / intimidating him regarding further
testimony?  Is this possibly why he seems to have fled to the mainland?
      "In any event, the prevalence of plea bargaining and immunity in criminal cases suggests that even real
criminals can be credible witnesses.  Contrary to the Police Commission's assertions, we do have two
witnesses - Lauer and Wendy.  I understand and agree with your reluctance to use Wendy, but the
Commission lists her as a witness, then in their conclusion states that there were no witnesses.  (Note,
2004:  On revue, I see that the PC didn't say that there were no witnesses, they said that all available
witnesses were interviewed.)
      "Are we allowed to use testimony from the first trial?  Lauer's, for example, if he can't be found, or the
officers', to see how their testimony changed (Akagi's in particular)?   (Note, 2004 - I was still under the
impression that Akagi had stated that he was pre-occupied with Wendy, and did not allege that I pushed
Lopes, or see Lopes push me.)
      "To return to the first subject - I was examined by the head of the Brain Injury Recovery Program,
and he wants to get me started, but we have to wait for the health insurance to come through.  
      Otherwise, I will have to come up with the money myself; either course is going to take a few months.  
As I said, I will keep you posted. ..."

      Arnold T. Phillips, March 8th, 2000:
      "Thank you for the information on TBI.  We will need to develop this if it is to be a factor in the
damages in this case.  Please let me know who the doctors are and what the course of treatment is.  The
main question for them is 'can they state that the injury came from the beating?'
 "Let me know how this develops so that it doesn't get away from us."

      Arnold T. Phillips, March 9th, 2000:
 "We are required to provide our experts with resume and report by May 15th.  Check with your
doctors and see if they can come up with a definitive report by that time or call or email me so that we
can discuss this."

      A. Arney, March 17, 2000:
      "I'm not sure what you mean by "resume" in your March letter.  Does that refer to the doctor's
resume?
      "As I wrote in my Feb. 9 letter, we are waiting for my term of employment here ... to mature so I can
get on their group insurance plan ... Exams and treatment have not begun yet.
      "It is my understanding that the articles I sent you from the 9, 1999 issue of the J.A.M.A. are pretty
much state of the art.  If CAT and MRI scans had been done within a day or two of the incident, they
could have shown a direct relationship between the beating and the injuries;  as almost four years have
passed, though, I have my doubts.
      "Further research by the A.M.A. indicates that ALL blows to the head are detrimental.  This even
includes athletes "heading" the ball in soccer games, which is far less severe than being beaten to the
point of unconsciousness.  That's why I mentioned the head trauma units at Leahi or Kaneohe as being
possible sources of expert testimony.  It is my understanding that even though a specific injury cannot
be measured it can be still be considered detrimental.
      "Anyhow, I will be eligible for the insurance at the end of this month.  Even if it won't cover me, I plan
to get on the T.B.I. program, because I know full well that that beating was detrimental and was
injurious.  I definitely will keep the May 15 deadline in mind, and will press for a speedy report."

      Arnold T. Phillips, April 13th, 2000:
      "The resume is a document from the doctor and any expert that we will use setting out his education,
employment, work in the field, etc. to show that he is qualified to be an expert. ... What we need to
determine is if we are going to claim that there is a closed head injury we will need to use medical
records and testimony from treating doctors to show that injury and the connection to the beating.  It is
just a fact that there was no immediate cat scan or other medical procedure that would show that the
injury is related to the beating.  However, if you can state that you have received no other injury to the
head from the time of incident to the diagnosis then we will have to go with that as our evidence.  It
should be enough for the doctor to give an opinion on the causation being from the beating.  We can ask
him to assume that it is true that you have not had any other injury to the head if that is the case.
      "We have the May 15 deadline and so it is time to decide are we going to go with the head injury and if
so we need to get a new court date far enough in advance to allow for the treatment and to get reports
from doctors.  You might give me the name and telephone number of the doctors and I will call them
from here to discuss this.
      "If we are going on the beating it is excessive force if you believe us and I do not know if we need to
have an expert testify to this that would save us some money."

      A. Arney, May 4, 2000:
      "I'm sending you the neurologist's report, although I doubt that it will be very useful.  I asked Dr.
McIntosh if he could provide a statistical revue of T.B.I. and a resume, neither of which he included.
 MRI scans could prove relevant, but the Dr. doesn't want to go through with that until my insurance
comes through and I can get on his Brain Injury Recovery program.  In terms of proving damages, that
sounds like something worth pursuing ... as much as I don't want to prolong this process, perhaps we
should extend the trial date one more time.  I apologize for the delays, but can't speed up the insurance
process.
      "Arnold, I suspect that we are somewhat out of synch in our respective views of this case.  You may
recall that you asked me why I am "doing this," last November.
      "I am pursuing this case  because 1) Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi have committed some serious
crimes, for which they should be held accountable, and 2) their superiors, particularly the Police
Commission, failed to do their jobs, and they should be held accountable also.  I am NOT after money
acquired from beguiled taxpayers.  What I hope is that we will get a unanimous verdict of "guilty," and
have this case referred to the criminal court.
      "On the other hand, I realize that you are engaged in this as a professional, and have to make a living at
it.  The more injury we can prove, the higher the award.  I have no problem with that, but, as I stated,
that's not why I'm involved in this litigation.  I want justice, and equal treatment under the law.
      "I don't want you to lose faith in this because I can't prove the extent of my injuries.  I AM willing to
increase my payments to you, if we can alter or add a clause to our original contract.  In your letter of
Aug. 19-'98 you stated that I might be awarded $20,000 to 50,000.  I'm willing to guarantee a minimum
of $10,000 to you, if we win the case and are awarded less than $20,000.  In other words, I will make
up the difference.
      "I am also willing to pay you $5,000 in the event that we should lose - beyond the retainer and the
research money I've sent you already - but only if all the evidence is requested, and all witnesses are
included.  If this should go into appeals, I want to be able to take everything as far as the Supreme Court.
 "In that same letter (8-19-98), you advised that I should be prepared to lose.  I am only prepared to
lose a round, and expect to go on to the next.  To appeal, in this instance.  If this lasts until my dying
day, I will not accept defeat.  (Underlining 2004.  "Be prepared to lose" is not part of my vocabulary)
    "I was appalled to hear you say that this could come down to my words against the defendants'.  In the
first trial the judge agreed that the officers were not credible; this was based on my word and Lauer's vs.
the officers'.  The documents you've sent to me for revue (and others that I've not seen, such as the trial
transcript), are full of statements that should further erode the defendants' credibility.  These include
conflicting statements, omissions, and outright lies. ... How can the defendants assert that they were
"sent via dispatch' when there was no such dispatch? ... How can the Police Commission assert that
there were no ... other (witnesses) when Lauer appeared and testified at the trial?   I'm certain that I
gave Lauer's pager number to either Cluney or Mrkva (and why would I not?), and they could have
picked that up from the trial even if I didn't.
      (Note, 2004:  The day of my deposition was when Phillips told me that it could come down to my
word against the officers'.  And, on revue, I see that the judge in the 12-30-'96 trial did not say that the
officers weren't credible, he said that credibility is an issue in all cases.)
      "(Wendy) and Lauer are already listed as witnesses, in the P.C. report and the first trial, respectively.  I
still understand that Wendy is a weak witness, but if for some unfathomable reason all the evidence is
not allowed, I think that we should have her in reserve.  As it is, I still don't know where she is living,
and her children are decidedly uncooperative.  Like Lauer, she is an unlocatable witness.  Please apply
whatever is necessary to have them acknowledged; even if we can't call them in person, they have
testified in my favor.  Please request that ALL documents, from 911 calls to the defendants' depositions
are allowed as evidence.  I suppose that the $ amounts are pretty paltry, but I feel compelled to offer
them as a gesture of good faith and commitment.
      .....
      "I will go through with the neurological tests - regardless of deadlines - for my own knowledge and
peace of mind.  Chances are they will not show damage specific to the September 1996 incident.  I
honestly have no idea.  If you think it would be worthwhile to postpone the trial date one more time I
will go along with your judgment.  Personally, I would rather get this going.
      "I know I've mentioned this before.  If the Police Commission is dropping the ball on discipline cases,
the officers' discipline records are relatively meaningless.  What is the record of complaints against
them, in particular, complaints for which they would be arrested if they were "civilians?"  This seems
important to me in terms of equal treatment.  If Matsubara is going to question me about my complaint
record, you should be allowed to question the defendants about theirs.  As you've related, Aina seems to
be quite the loose cannon."

      Arnold T. Phillips, May 16th, 2000:
      "The trial has been reset for May 22, 2001 that should give us time to thoroughly prove the closed
head injury.  We need to look at this carefully.
      "Enclosed is the bill from Ginandes.  Please start to pay this off.
      "We will need soon to travel for Lauer's deposition and I will let you know in time to arrange for the
costs.  Hang in there it is a long road but it is worth it."
      (Note, 2004:  I'd thought that Ginandes was retained on a contingency basis, and would be paid when
we won the case ... also thought that his bill was $1000 - per Phillips' letter of June 27, 1998.  The
statement enclosed was a bill for $3203.20.  It was rather a shock.  Also note that Phillips addressed
only one out of about a dozen issues and questions that I had brought up in my letter.)

      Arnold T. Phillips, July 19th, 2000:
      "Enclosed is the trial schedule.  I am tracking down S. Lauer.  When we find him I will need to travel
there to take his deposition.  If the doctor there finds a connection with your injury and the beating here
then we will need to get his deposition. ...  Please keep me advised of how it is going with the doctor
there."

      A. Arney, August 3, 2000:
      "I've received your letter of July 19, and the trial schedule.  Will I have to be present for any of the
pre-trial conferences, or will any input from me be required?
      "The insurance finally came through, and I hope to start taking some tests within a month.  I will let
you know the results as soon as possible."

      Arnold T. Phillips, August 11th, 2000:
      "We are on the trail of Steve Lauer.  The last time we had him we did not move fast enough to get his
deposition.  This time I want to move quickly to get a statement and set up a deposition.  If we take a
video taped deposition we will not have to bring him out for the trial.
      "Let me know how we are on expense money.  We need to travel for Lauer, get the report and
deposition from doctor in CO and the depositions of the police officers. ...  Glad to know that insurance
is kicking in for coverage."

      A. Arney, August 27, 2000:
      "...the HMO insurance finally came through, but I have to pay the full premium - almost $200/ month
- money I would prefer to use elsewhere.  I was scheduled to see the doctor in September, but he will
be out of town, so my visit has been changed to early October.
      "I absolutely had to repair three teeth, so have not increased my available funds recently.  As it stands,
I have $2500 available. ...
      "I thought that we took the defendants' depositions in 1998.  If that is still pending, it could work to our
advantage, as their accounts vary. It seems obvious to me that every time they make a statement they
erode their credibility."
                                                                   

      Arnold T. Phillips, August 27th, 2000:
      "We have found Steve Lauer and I spoke to him on Saturday.  He is willing to help in anyway that he
can.  He does not remember you pushing any police personnel.
      "I would like to take his deposition.  He is now in Florida.  He seems like he would make a good
witness.  I will probably take his deposition on video tape so that we can use the testimony without
having to fly him in for the trial.
      "We are going to have to spend some money here for a copy of your deposition which was taken
($820.00), Steve Lauer ($1300 - 1700 transportation and deposition in Florida).
      "Finally there is a deadline November 20th for the turning in of the experts reports.  Please let me
know if we will have a report by this time from the doctor there.  I am not certain that we want to use
Dr. Ginandes. …  I would prefer to use other medical witness to establish the injury and the connection

to the beating."

      A. Arney, September 6, 2000:
      "I hope that I understand your letter of August 27 correctly.  Enclosed is $1700 for a trip to Florida to
take Steve Lauer's deposition.  This will leave me with $800 available now, with the probability that I
will have $800 per month after that.  I'll just have to meet these expenses in their order of priority.
Please let me know what that is.
      "As I related in my last letter, the neurologist's tests should start in early October.  I'll do what I can to
speed up the reports, but for now have no idea how fast these people will move.
      "At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to say again that 99% of the officers' allegations
are outright lies, and you can confidently treat them as such.  Try to get Lauer's take on as many of
those statements as possible.  Sometimes that is as simple as the timing involved - for example, Wendy
did not start screaming until the officers started hitting me. ..."

      Arnold T. Phillips, September 9th, 2000:
      "The report from the medical witness saying that the actions which are the subject of the law suit were
caused the injury and that it is permanent is the minimum that we need to stay in court.  Any less and
we will be dismissed on a motion.
      "The reason that we got more time was so the doctor could make this determination and give us his
report.
      "The drop deadline is November 20th.  It is also necessary to purchase a copy of your deposition
which was taken last time you were here and it would be prudent to take the depositions of the police
officers. We are talking about spending $10,000 to do this.  Figure #1,000 per deposition anyless will
cover the expenses to get Lauer's deposition.
      "If we are going to be behind the power curve on any of these then it may be the best course of
action to see if this can be settled.  Please give me your input and authorization on this as soon as
possible as time goes by very quickly."

      This letter stunned me.  I spent hours just trying to understand the first sentence, and finally decided
that perhaps Mr. Phillips' secretary had simply left out the word 'by.'  -   "..the actions which are the
subject of the law suit were caused (by) the injury ...” could seem to make sense, although the injury
didn't really cause any legal actions.  I had come to expect strange sentences from Phillips, and I
believed that some sort of secretary was doing the typing for him, but this was beyond comprehension.
Phillips was signing his name on letters like this as if they clearly communicated his thoughts, but the
thoughts were anything but clear.  The implications were, though - without medical proof of injury we
would be dismissed.  Why hadn't Phillips told me this in early 1997, before I got so financially involved?
      I had been watching for police brutality stories in the Honolulu newspapers, and noticed that in one of
them the U.S. Civil Rights Program had been involved in assisting the victim.  I looked them up at the
library and wrote to them explaining my situation briefly and asking if it might be appropriate to file a
complaint with their office.
      I also wrote to the Magistrate Judge who was handling the schedules, motions, and evidence for the
case and asked if it was true that without a medical report my case would be dismissed, and if so, how
had that come about.  I related that I was having problems understanding Mr. Phillips, and asked if the
judge could clarify some of his statements, like the first sentence in the September 9 letter.  It took a
few weeks to get these letters out, and by then I had cooled off enough to reply to Phillips.

     A. Arney, September 30, 2000:
      "Did you receive the $1700 I sent you for S. Lauer's deposition?  This was signed for by somebody
named Molina on Sept. 11.  I am prepared to send you another $800 - $1000 per month, but want to be
sure it is reaching you.  Let me know what the priorities are and I will cover them in that order.
      "I have to admit that I don't understand why I have to pay for all these depositions, in particular mine.
Can we charge the City $1000 for a copy of Lauer's deposition, and offset some of this expense?
      "Under no circumstances will I drop charges against Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi.  I will consider a
settlement along these lines:  Lauer's testimony in the 1996 trial will be acknowledged.  The Police
Commission will review their "investigation," reverse their ruling, and the officers will be disciplined.  
(Underlining original)  Since Wingo has fled the scene, this will go on his H.P.D. file, and notice of his
censure published in an appropriate (law enforcement) bulletin.  Or, the City can forward the
information to his current employer.  I suppose that the City will cry about invasion of privacy - in this
case we can accept just the censure permanently in his file.
      "With Lauer's existent testimony we have a case for filing false charges, conspiracy, and perjury.  
These are crimes.  Considering that H.P.D. considers suspension with pay to be discipline (which in the
real world is called a paid vacation), the defendants should consider themselves lucky that they are not
in criminal court.
      "If the Police Commission had done their job in 1996, we would not be where we are today - they too
have a share of responsibility.  If they find themselves big enough to admit that, I will accept a
settlement.  Even though I am reluctant to stick the Hawaii taxpayers with the bill for the City's actions,
I guess that's the way things are set up.  Go for as much as you can get."

      Arnold T. Phillips, October 9th, 2000:
      "Responding to your letter of September 30 the letter with the $1700 check was received.  On the
costs we pay for copies of the depositions that they have taken.  This is yours.  We pay for the costs of
the original of deposition that we want of their witnesses.  This will be all of the defendants.  We need to
know what they are going to say and we need to have this before we get to Steve Lauer.
      .....
      "From your comments I am not clear if you want to settle or direct that we prepare for trial.  If
settlement is an option I need to get a range of dollar amounts.  This in my experience should be in the
$15,000 to $25,000 range.  If we don't have any medical expert to say that there is injury connected to
the incident we should look for settlement seriously.
      "October 20 is the deadline for amending the complaint and I am going to file amended complaint
which puts forward false arrest, conspiracy, assault and battery causes of action.  If you will give me a
fax number I will send you the final copy.  I would like to get your signature on this amended complaint
and will send it to you within the next week."

      A. Arney, October 15, 2000 (via fax):
      "Yes, you may consider settlement as an option, but I think it's too early to sell short.  The
neurological tests are in progress - I won't know until October 24 how conclusive they will be.
      "I thought that false arrest was already included in our original complaint under Cause of Action #2 -
False Imprisonment, #3 - Unlawful Seizure, and #4 - Initiation and Pursuit of Prosecution Without
Probable Cause.  Assault and Battery is #6, and Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights is #8.  The only word
I don't see is perjury.  If you think it's necessary to amend the complaint, you might try to work that in.
      "What I was referring to in my September 30 letter was Cause #5 - Supervisory Liability of ... City and
County of Honolulu, Honolulu Police Department, etc. ... The Police Commission evaded that liability
when they ignored Steven Lauer's testimony.  If there is a way that they can acknowledge that
testimony and revue their "investigation", I am willing to accept whatever discipline they choose for the
officers, and accept a settlement in terms of an apology to me.  In this case, $25,000 sounds fair to me.
If they absolutely refuse to acknowledge Lauer, that amounts to a refusal to discipline, and I can't go
along with that.  I suppose that I just don't understand the settlement process, but could you please ask
the city attorney if anyone there has ever confronted Lauer's sworn testimony?"

      A. Arney, October 25, 2000:
      " I regret to inform you that the neurological tests - an MRI and EEG - did not show conclusive
evidence of damage inflicted in my 1996 beating."

      Arnold T. Phillips, October 30th, 2000:
      "Responding to your letter of October 15th ... there was a recent settlement for a person who was
beaten in jail.  He had broken ribs and punctured internal organs required extensive hospitalization
ongoing medical care and received permanent injuries.  This case settled for less than $350,000.  In that
case the medical expenses were probably in excess of $100,000.  Any settlement in your case would be
in the $20 to $30,000 range.  If it were tried without any more medical than we have now that is
probably the verdict range also.
      "If there is no medical report which ties in present injuries and permanent condition to the arrest and
beating then we will not be able to argue that those items of damage.  Usually the other item of damage
is the cost to defend the criminal matter.  However in your case there was no damage here to you since
you used the public defender.
      "Without medical damages or loss of earnings or cost of defense expenses the jury can only go on their
sense of outrage and remember that they tend to want to find in favor on the police because they do not
want to think that the police are engaging in this type of conduct.
      "They want to believe that the cops are doing a good job and that there must be some reason for them
to do what they did.
      "All of your losses things that you can't do now must be tied in to the arrest and beating as we have
discussed in terms of causation - the arrest and beating caused the condition - and there is professional
testimony to tie this in.
      "Work up a list of your expenses related to the incident, medical care, prescriptions, doctors visits,
hospital trips or tests etc and lets go over it.  Call me and lets set up a telephone call time for a
conference."

      A. Arney, November 7, 2000:
      "The bill for my emergency room visit at Kaiser the night of the incident was $400.  Dr. Ginandes
charged me a total of $3293.20.  So far, those are my expenses.  I'm sure that there will be some pretty
hefty co-payments for these tests I'm going through now, but the bill hasn't come in yet.
      "As I've stated several times, I absolutely will not drop charges against the officers, unless the Police
Commission acknowledges Lauer's 1996 testimony and the officers are disciplined.  If you are looking
to settle, that is my price.  I will not accept a settlement that allows the City to evade its responsibility.  
If you haven't done so already, please confront the City attorney with Lauer's testimony.
      "In your letter dated 9/09/'00 you said that  "The report from the medical witness ... is the minimum
that we need to stay in court.  Any less and we will be dismissed on a motion."   I did not undertake this
case to get money, I did it in the pursuit of justice.  If that justice is not to be forthcoming, I would
prefer to lose all that I have invested in this so far (about $10,000), rather than accept a dishonorable
settlement.  If it will be dismissed, so be it."

      A. Arney, December 20, 2000:
      "I seem to have gone full circle with the medical situation here.  The Brain Injury Recovery Program
seemed like the place to be, but their system required that I start with the neurologist.  He insisted that I
have H.M.O. coverage, and as you know, the City took months to process that.  I eventually took the
required tests and was referred back to the Brain Injury program, and it turns out that the H.M.O. won't
cover that.  If I had spent the time and money on an independent psychiatrist I probably could have
come up with a good diagnosis and letter, but that seems a moot point if our deadline was November 20.
      "I contacted the Civil Rights Program, regarding criminal charges against the officers vis a vis the
success or failure of our Civil case.  They told me that Criminal / Civil cases are independent of and
have no bearing on each other.  This frees me up tremendously in terms of seeking justice through the
Civil Court.  As I have related many times, my concern throughout this case has been that the officers
be disciplined.  If I had known in the beginning that Civil Court is not the proper venue for that, I would
have gone straight to the Civil Rights Program, and not initiated Civil proceedings at all.  I apologize for
my ignorance, and for my strident demands for justice and discipline.
      "This doesn't mean that I want to give up on our case - whatever remains of it - just that my
expectations have changed.  Could you please advise me as to where we stand on the following topics...?
         *)  I would still like to believe that the Police Commission is at least trying to do their job honorably.  
This means that they should acknowledge the 1996 testimony of S. Lauer.  I don't expect that they will
discipline the officers, so I won't insist on that as a condition for settlement, but I do want them
presented with Lauer's testimony, and a written statement from them acknowledging it.  Am I being
unrealistic about this?  Is it bureaucratically impossible?  I mean this as a  settlement with the City only.  
I still cannot see dropping charges against the officers.
        *)  In your Sept. 09 letter you stated that without a letter from the medical witness,  "we will be
dismissed on a motion."  When will we know if that is going to happen?  I would still prefer to go to
trial, and am prepared to send you money for depositions, etc., but of course I don't want to throw my
money away if it is certain that we will be dismissed.
        *) Even without proof of medical damage, don't we have a good case for excessive force, false
arrest, perjury, and conspiracy?  Doesn't the court award punitive damages for these?
"I have believed that the officers' sworn statements in their complaints the night of the incident, in
Court, and to the Police Commission are all admissible as evidence in Court.  Am I wrong about this?  
Does not Lauer's testimony refute theirs, not only that I did not push any officer, but that I was not
shouting at the officers, did not keep standing up after being sat on the wall, and did not have to be
"subdued"?  I don't see how we can't get some mileage out of this.
        *) In your Aug. 27 letter you listed a cost of $1300 - $1700 for transportation to Florida and Lauer's
deposition.  I wasn't sure if that was a range of costs, or the total ($3000), so I sent you the larger
amount.  If you want to take officers' depositions first, please use that $1700, and let me know what the
balance is, plus whatever it will take to get Lauer's deposition.  Just what is the total figure on that?  I
hope that we can get the copy of my deposition last, and use available funds for more critical items.
      "Beyond my obvious ignorance of bureaucratic and legal protocol, I am unsure about many things.  
My objective throughout all of this has been to hold the officers personally responsible for their actions.
 Even though Civil Court proceedings don't seem to be the best way to effect that, they may be the only
handle I have on justice.  I don't want to assume that the Civil Rights people are going to be any more
effective than the Police Commission was.  I would prefer to go down fighting rather than to take a dive,
but don't want to waste money on a lost cause."

      A few weeks after writing to the FBI's Civil Rights Program, I had been contacted by phone by Agent
Marshall in Honolulu.  He was the one who informed me that my civil case would have no bearing on a
criminal / civil rights procedure.  He said that he would accept and process my complaint, and that the
FBI in Colorado would contact me.
      Special Agent Christianson called me several weeks later, and interviewed me in his office.  The
interview was quite similar to the Honolulu Police Commission interview and my deposition, in that
Agent Christianson covered a lot of basic information before getting to the incident itself.   Something
that I found amusing was that Christianson had a thick stack of papers on his desk, with an enlarged
copy of my driver’s license picture on the top.  Now, the stack of papers might have been the FBI file on
me, which could have been the set of documents that the Honolulu City attorney gave to Mr. Phillips,
plus a ream of blank paper.  Maybe it was all blank paper. I had seen enough already so that I wasn't
intimidated, if that was Agent Christianson's intent.  What I found amusing was the enlarged license
photo.  If you think that your driver’s license picture doesn't do you justice, wait until you see it blown up
to fill an 8 1/2 by 11 page!   
                                                            
      Arnold T. Phillips, December 27th, 2000:
      "Today I took the deposition of Dru Akagi and Ronald Lopes.  On Friday I take the deposition of
Aina.  Next week I will travel to Orlando to get Lauer.  He is giving us problems turning up and then
disappearing.  I want to talk to him face to face to impress on him how important it is that he cooperate
with us.
      "As soon as the depositions are transcribed I will email them to you.  After these depositions we are in
a spot to try to settle, but my impression is that we will have to go to trial.  Whatever way it works out it
will be the best."

      A. Arney, January 7, 2001:
      "I'm glad to hear that you are going through with the depositions, and am enclosing $1000 toward
expenses.
      "It looks like our letters might have passed each other in transit last week - I would still appreciate your
advice about the questions I raised in my Dec. 20 letter, particularly about the likelihood of being
dismissed on a motion. ..."

      Arnold T. Phillips, January 15th, 2001:
      "Thank you for the check for the depositions of the police officers.  On January 4th I was in Orlando
and after much confusion and investigation I located Steve Lauer at his new employer.  He had his
phone disconnected and so there was no way to contact him to confirm the deposition.  My concern
was that he was not going to cooperate and that he would be an unreliable witness.  I tracked him to his
new employer and then had to come back the next day to make contact.  The upshot was that we did
not get him to give his deposition but when I finally found him he was apologetic and my feeling is that
he will cooperate.  I would say that we could take a telephone deposition but I would like to sit with him
face to face to prepare him for the deposition.
      "As you will read in the police officers depositions their position will be that they have had lots of
experience with witnesses that say that they saw different things than really went on.
      "If they maintain this position then we will have to put their credibility to the test of the jury to see who
is telling the truth.  Really the tough questions are why would you or Steven lie.  As you will see this is a
question I have put to the police officer and they have no good response.
      "If we do have to go to trial then we will have to bring out Steven Lauer and that is another reasons
that I would like to spend some time with him personally to get him ready. ... I think the phone was off
because he has trouble paying his bills and that is another reasons that we need to use the utmost care in
how we deal with him.  He has no reason to cooperate with us and if he gets a better job offer, for
instance, somewhere else he may disappear again.
      "The discovery deadline is March 23rd so we will have to deal with this issue of his deposition before
that date.  My best date would be leave February 16th deposition on 18th and return on same date."

      Arnold T. Phillips, February 1st 2001:
      "Again I am worried about the ability to get the deposition of Lauer.  I have tried to call him his home
is not working and I am not able to contact him at his home.
      "What are your suggestions we have a deadline of March 23rd for his deposition and any other
discovery that we are going to do in the case.
      "We can pick a date and have him served with a subpoena to attend but that is not going to contribute
to his desire to be cooperative.
      "Let me know when you have an email account and I will email you the police officer depositions."
                                                                                          
      A. Arney, February 8, 2001:
      "It's not likely that I will get e-mail in the near future.  For some reason the connection to our house
doesn't work - I'd have to go miles out of my way.  It would be most time-efficient to fax those
depositions to me at 970-223-1626 (Mail Boxes Etc.).  MBE charges me $1/page, though.  If there are
more than 50 pages, express mail would be better.
      "Your earlier letters gave me the impression that Lauer was willing to co-operate and help in any way
that he could, just in the sense of being a good citizen and promoting law and order in the U.S.  I can't
imagine why he should change, and there should be "something in it for him."  Do you suppose that he
was threatened at some point?
      "I also had the impression that Plan A was to video-tape the deposition so I would not have to fly him
to Hawaii and back for the trial.  Is this somehow not possible anymore?  I definitely do not want to pay
for three Hawaii / Florida round trips and one Colorado / Hawaii trip if that can be avoided.  Plan A still
seems best.
      "Speaking of finances, I am sending you another $1000 to help with expenses, but I am curious about
specific expenditures.  Has all of the $2500 I sent you in August 1998 been used up?"

      Arnold T. Phillips, February 10th, 2001:
      "Thank you for your quick response.  I have again set up the deposition of Lauer for February 24th.  I
was able to get him at his job.  My two letters were unanswered and the home phone is still off, but we
did contact him and he seems agreeable to testify.  You mentioned a video actually I was thinking that I
would not do a video but that we would have someone probably white middle age read his deposition at
the trial.  I would read the questions that I asked and this other person would read his answers.
      "There is still the necessity that the City agree to the deposition, but I do not think that they have much
choice even it is on Saturday and early in the morning for whoever is going to participate by phone.  I
will go in a day ahead of time and prepare Lauer.
      "The expense are all tracked and entered as they are incurred.  I will update them and then send you a
copy.  (Note, 12/07/2004:  I still have not received a copy of the expenses.)
      "There is still the deposition of Wingo who is now a cop in Washington State that we have to take and
that is probably going to mean a trip to the mainland.
      "After that we have got it and are ready to go."

      Arnold T. Phillips, March 8th, 2001:
      "This is a update.  Yesterday I returned from the deposition trip to Orlando for Steven Lauer.  He
makes a good witness and the trip was successful.  I want to send you the depositions and the best way
to do this is to send you the disks and you can print them there.  They are enclosed in this letter.
      "I want to take the deposition of the Honolulu Police Commission investigator and subpoena the
reports that HPC provides to the City Council each year and the amount of money paid out in police
brutality settlements.
      "We still have outstanding bills for the police officers depositions and we need to pay for a copy of
yours.  The bill for Lauer will be here in ten days.
      "There is a settlement conference with the judge on the 26th of this month and I will need to discuss
this with you soon."

      A. Arney, March 9, 2001:
      "Enclosed is another $1000 toward expenses.  I expect that I can keep up the pace of about $1000 per
month, but doubt that I can go any faster.
      "What sort of timetable should I set up for a trip to Honolulu for the trial?  Do you want me there
several days early for strategy conferences or preparation?  How long might the trial last?  As it is, I am
looking at arriving about May 17, and staying for three weeks.  Is that realistic?  I will have to set up
schedules with airlines, my sister (effectively my landlady), and my job ..."
      (Note, 2004: At this time we were still expecting a trial date of May 22.)

      A. Arney, March 19, 2001:
      "This is just a confirmation of my phone message the other night.  I received your letter of 3/08/01, in
which you said that depositions were enclosed in disks.  There were no disks in that envelope.
      "I don't think that I can pay all the expenses by May 22.  As I mentioned in an earlier letter, I can keep
up the pace of $1000/ month, but anything beyond that is unlikely.  My credit is maxed out as it is."

      Arnold T. Phillips, March 21, 2001:
      "Here are the disks ... sorry."

      Arnold T. Phillips, March 30th, 2001:
      "The City and County have not offered any money.  They contend that there is no evidence of injury
to substantiate your claim.  They say that the ER report does not support the claim of beating to the
head.  They say that the witness supports them that there was nothing more than being pushed to the
ground.
      "The trial is set for July 3rd. This is a hard date and we should be prepared to go on that date.
      "The City and County seem to miss that even if there was no evidence of injury from a beating that
consisted of several blows to the head there is still no way around the malicious prosecution claims or
the conspiracy to violate civil rights claim.  We need to just get ready to try the case and leave it up to
the jury.  You make a good witness and I am sure that you will be believed again by this jury as you
were by the District Court in the criminal trial.
      "You should probably make plans to be here for three weeks from June 20th on."

      (Note, 2004):  Mr. Phillips and I then had a phone conversation in which he related that the City
attorney - Mr. Matsubara - had come up with conflicting court dates, and my case would be overlapping
an earlier one of his.  Since he could not be prepared for both, the trial date was re-set (again) to July
23.)
                                                                                                                    
                                        Depositions of the Police Officers

      A. Arney, April 13, 2001:
      "Dear Arnold;
      "I've reviewed the depositions you sent.  It seems to me that the officers have further eroded their
credibility, either through conflicting statements or in comparison with the available evidence.
      "Again, Lopes and Akagi state that they were sent via dispatch to Nimitz and River, or to the parking
lot at that intersection, and that it took some time for them to get there (Lopes pp. 20, 21, 24 - Akagi pp.
45, 47, 48).  As I've mentioned before, Wendy and I were not arguing at that area, but walking (as fast
as I could) along Nimitz.  If a 911 call had come in when we were at the Nimitz / River location, by the
time the call was processed and the dispatch sent, and Lopes and Akagi drove around for a few minutes,
Wendy and I would have been around the corner and approaching the Dole cannery.
      "I trust that Lauer confirms that Wendy and I were traveling, not stationary at River and Nimitz.  
Again, I challenge the existence of a dispatch.  Mr. Matsubara has stated that no evidence exists
regarding any dispatch - is it too late to find out how long H.P.D. is supposed to keep such records?  
Regarding the City's responsibility, why didn't the Police Commission verify the alleged dispatch?  They
had ample time.   (underlining 2004)
      "Descriptions of the alleged push vary more in the officers' new version.  Akagi admits that he had his
back turned (pp. 53, 54), and Lopes says (pp. 28, 29) that he scolded Akagi for standing that way.  Aina
repeats his observation that I was standing in front of Lopes with my hands clenched at my sides, and
that there was only one "action," when I allegedly pushed Lopes (pp. 29, 43).  Lopes, in contrast, has us
standing "bladed," at an angle (pp. 28, 38, 39), and says that I actually poked him in the chest (p. 35)
before pushing him.  The only version I have from Wingo is his initial incident, where he has me
standing two feet in front of Lopes, yelling in a loud boisterous manner, with my fists clenched at my
sides.
      "Regarding the bladed stance, my latest doctor's measurement has me at five feet four inches.  I have
rather short arms and legs, and it would have been near impossible for me to reach past Lopes' right arm
and poke him in the chest.  If he had indeed allowed that and then still was surprised when he was
pushed, that would have poor self-defense for anyone, let alone a police officer.
      "On page 37, Lopes seems to say that he pushed me in response to having his chest pointed at.  I don't
think that he means that he pushed me first, but it's interesting that he said that.
      "On page 41 Lopes again states that he pushed me back and I sat on the wall behind me.  Then Wingo
came in and handcuffed me.
      "You have no doubt noticed that none of the other officers agree with Lopes that I was bladed to him,
that my hands were up, that I poked him in the chest (or pointed at it), or that he pushed me backwards.
     “Then, in his version, Lopes has Wingo come in and handcuff me while I was seated on the wall (p. 43).  
Aina (pp. 43, 44) says that he and Wingo handcuffed me while still standing, then I was taken to the
wall and sat down.  As I pointed out in the time line I sent you in 1999, there are a few other variations
in how the arrest and handcuffing took place.
      "These are the major items that I can pick out at this time, although a few other things caught my eye.  
In several places the officers stated that I was not injured when taken from this scene.  I'm sure that the
original mug photo will show some damage, and hope that the City will produce that original.  Likewise,
Inspector Cluney, during my initial visit to the Police Commission, took pictures of my face ... I don't
see them included in the P.C. report.  (underlining 2004)
      "It's interesting that Aina was at the first trial, but the prosecutor declined to call him to testify.  Wendy
told me that the officers - while waiting outside the courtroom to testify - were laughing and joking about
the incident so loudly that the prosecutor had to come out and tell them to shut up.  As I recall, the
original prosecutor didn't like this case, and had it postponed, and (?) dumped it on someone else.  She
was not happy to be handed a losing case.  I don't know if there is anything worthwhile in this, but
thought I'd mention it.
     "I see that our deadline for exhibits is approaching, and I hope you don't mind if I make a few
suggestions.  Can we include the JAMA reports on TBI that I sent you a while back?  They indicate that
head trauma is associated with impaired mental performance, even when there is no obvious injury or
wound.  I believe there is a precedent for this in the tobacco lawsuits, where the plaintiffs did not have
to prove every individual case, but were allowed to use smoking vs. health statistics.  At any rate, these
reports are all in the Sept. 8, 1999 issue of JAMA.
      "Are all of the defendants' prior statements regarding the incident going to be made available?  Whether
through discovery or as exhibits, I hope we will be allowed to compare what they said in the incident
reports, in the first trial, and to the Police Commission.
      "You will find enclosed two pictures of me as I looked at that time, for possible comparison with the
stunned and disheveled look I had in the mug photos.  One thing that's bothered me is that the officers
took off my hair tie and roughed up my hair so that I looked unkempt.  As you will recall, even though I
had rather long hair at that time, I always kept it tied back neatly.   The larger of these pictures was
taken right after my interview with Inspector Cluney.  This was about 1 1/2 days after the incident, and
I still look stunned and confused.  I had had absolutely no alcohol (or any other substances) when that
picture was taken.
      "Also enclosed are the deposition discs.  Next Friday will be my next payday, and I'll enclose another
check for $1000 as soon as that's in the bank. ..."

      Mr. Phillips grilled the officers about as thoroughly as Matsubara had done to me, but none of their
personal histories affected the case, except for their actions on the morning of 9/26/96.  My review of
their depositions for Phillips was quite brief, especially because he had his own copies to refer to.  Some of
their statements were significant - to me, at least.  For example - Lopes and Akagi again alleged that they
were sent via dispatch to Nimitz and River, and that it took them some time to get there.  That is putting
it mildly.   
      From Akagi's deposition:
      Mr. Phillips:  "And you were riding with officer Lopes at this time?"
      Akagi:  "Yes."
      "And where were you - who was driving?"
      "I cannot remember because sometimes we switch, but I think I may have been driving."
      "And do you remember where you were when you got the call?"
      "No."
      "And what's the first thing you remember about the incident?"
      "Well, we were sent there via dispatch to an argument case."
      "When you say 'an argument case,’ what is ‘an argument case'?"
      "People with a disagreement on the street."
      "And where was it, what location?"
      "It was - I don't know what it's called.  It was a parking lot that runs along Nimitz Highway."
      "Was it in the parking lot area, or was it in the - "
      "It was like in that driveway that goes into the parking lot, I think."
      .....
      Phillips: "And you've drawn a diagram now which we will make it part of the deposition as exhibit 2.     
       What does the "x" mark?"
      "It's about where it happened."
      "And you came up from what direction, what street?"
      "You know, I don't know if we were in the parking lot, or we were on Nimitz Highway."
      "At what time?"
      "That we found the argument."
      "Uh huh."
      "Yeah.  I don't know if we were already in the parking lot looking for it and - or if we came out on
Nimitz - off of Nimitz because I know we had a hard time finding them at first."
      "So if I understand you correctly, you're not certain if you were in the parking lot in the patrol car
when you got the dispatch call or whether you were driving on Nimitz Highway?   Is that - "
      "No.  I misunderstood that again.  Come again."
      "Is that what you're saying?  Do I understand you to say that you cannot recall whether you were in
the parking lot at the location of the Nimitz and River street where the incident happened or whether
you were driving on Nimitz when you got the call?"
      "Oh, when we got the call, I don't - as far as I can remember, I don't think we were in this area.  We
were like someplace else."
      "Do you recall where you came from, what direction on what street?"
      Mr. Matsubara:  "I think vague and ambiguous on that point.  Objection."
      Mr. Phillips:  "You can't recall where you were coming from, and you can't recall what direction and
what street you used to get to the location of the incident?"
      Akagi:  "We came from someplace downtown."
      "And when you got there, how many - what did you see?"
      "Nothing at first.  We were driving around just this area because this is where they sent us to, this area
over here (indicating)."
      "Now, you're indicating the area that's bounded by Nimitz, the canal, and the entry to the parking lot?  
Is that where you put your finger on the bottom of this diagram, that area?"
      "The exact call, I - you know, I don't know where - if they said to the parking lot or Nimitz and River,
but I know we were driving in that area looking for the argument and we had a hard time finding it at
first."
      "How long did you drive around?"
      "Few minutes."
      "And when you say you had a hard time finding the argument, why did you have a hard time?"
      "I didn't see anybody arguing at that point when we first arrived."
      "And when did you see something that caught your attention?"
      "See, at that point, I don't know if we were exiting the parking lot or we were on Nimitz Highway, but
they were in this area over here in this area by the "x" (indicating)."
      "And what drew your attention to them?"
      "I heard them arguing and yelling."    


      Compare to Ronald Lopes, in deposition, December 27, 2000:
      Mr. Phillips:  "Do you recall how you came to respond to this particular incident?"
      Lopes:  "Was a radio call.  We were dispatched."
      "Do you remember where you were when you got the call?"
      "Not exactly."
      .....
      "Do you recall that evening before this incident after you came on work how busy you had been?"
      "No, I don't recall."
      "Nothing stands out in your mind particularly?"
      "Nothing at this time."
      "After you received the radio dispatch, where did you go?"
      "We responded to the area of Nimitz and River Street."
      "What is your recollection now of the information that you received from the radio dispatch?"
      "It was an argument between a male and a female."
      "Was there any other information that you can remember?"
      "Not right now."
      .....
      "Was there any information that you had before you got to the scene about how the report came to be
made to the police?"
      "I don't understand."
      "How did the police get the report that caused them to make the dispatch to have you go to this
incident?"
      .....
      "I don't know."
      "You didn't know then, and no one has told you now how the police came to have the report?"
      "No, not offhand."
     "And if you wanted to check that now, would there be any way to check it?"
      "I believe there is."
 "How would you go about doing that?"
      "You would have to get in touch with dispatch, and they would have to check the CAD which is the
computer-aided dispatch system."
      "And would it be possible to check something that is three or four years old?"
      "Off the top of my head, I wouldn't know."
      "Now - okay.  Who was driving your police vehicle that evening?"
      "I believe it was me."
      "And do you recall from what direction you approached the - this particular area where the incident
occurred?"
      "It's been a while.  I can't recall."
      .....
      Phillips:  "Again, you don't recall what position - where in your diagram you parked your police
vehicle?"
      "I - I can't - I can't figure out exactly where we parked the vehicle."
      "When you came onto the scene, where did you - where were you when you first saw the people?  
What drew your attention to them?  Why did you stop there?"
      "Because they were in this area (indicating), and I'm not sure which way we came from.  We came
down River, or if we came down Nimitz, I'm not sure.  But what drew my attention to them was the
female was hanging on to the male, and they were arguing with each other."    
                                                                                                                    

      Compare to Wallace Aina, in deposition, December 20, 2000:
      Mr. Phillips:  "And did you have a partner that day, or were you working alone?"
      Aina:  "Usually we work alone, but on that particular day officer David Wingo was riding with me in
the white car."
      "And why were you partnered with David Wingo that day?"
      "Officer Wingo was currently assigned to our receiving desk area where they book prisoners that come
in.  What they were doing at that time is officers that were going to be pushed out or rotated out of the
receiving desk, wanting to come back to patrol, they wanted to come out and ride along so they could
get - so they could handle the movement."
      "The transition from working in the station house to back on the street?"
      "Thank you.  Yes."
      .....
      Mr. Phillips:  "So when you came up on the scene there wasn't a concern that this was something that
was going on in Aala Park, was there?"
      "I wasn't sent to Aala Park."
      "Okay. ... Where were you that evening when you first received the - the assignment to go and
determine what was going on at this particular incident?"
      "I can't remember exactly where I was - "
      "Okay."
      ".. before we proceeded to this area."
      "Do you recall whether you or officer Wingo was driving?"
      "I believe officer Wingo was driving that night, sir."
      "Do you recall from what direction you came as you approached the scene?"
      "Not exactly.  I know we came down King Street, but what direction I don't know."
      "Okay.  Down King Street and then you turned on River Street and came to Nimitz, and then turned
right on Nimitz to get to the park, or - "
      "I cannot remember, sir.  Sorry."

      Compare to:

      Wendy, Police Commission statement:  "Two cars and those (Cushmans).  Each car had two
policemen, so, total that, ah, one was talking to me, and the other five was talking with Al."

      S. Lauer, Criminal Court testimony:  "I noticed a whole bunch of cops showed up over there ... Four
squad cars ... pretty much right behind one another ... Cushmans and police cars."

      W. Matsubara, in response to our request for documents:  "...No 'memo book entries, radio
transmissions and dispatcher notes, notes made by the writing officer and all other officers including
mobile terminal messages or data, including audiotapes made by any officer of the plaintiff or the
officer, or accident reports are known to exist."


      Interesting, too, is Ronald Lopes' expanded version of my alleged attack on him.  From his deposition:
      Lopes:  "Officer Akagi's back was toward me, but I was bladed to the suspect; in other words, what
we call a position of interrogation.  But I could see officer Akagi.
      Mr. Phillips:  "And officer Akagi wouldn't be able to see you?"
      "No, his back was turned to me."
      Mr. Phillips:  "And did you have any difficulty separating the man and the woman?"
      "No difficulty, but they were still kind of yelling back and forth at each other."
      "What did you say that you could hear as you approached them?"
      "Exact words I couldn't tell you right now."
      "Did you hear any cursing?"
           "Like I said, I don't recall exactly.  It's been a while."
      "So you don't know what they were saying, and of course then wouldn't know what they were arguing
about?"
      "Correct. ... "
      "Now before that incident occurred you had gotten out of the police car, you had
separated the man and the woman?"
      "Yes."
      "Officer Akagi had his back to you.  You were facing the man?"
      "Yes."
      "Was anybody else present at that time?"
      "No."
      "There was nobody that you could see that was in that general area?"
      "Nobody that I noticed in the general area. ... "
      "And so the first thing that the - that you said to the man was let me see identification?"
      "No.  The first thing I said to him was what was going on?"
      "And what was his response?"
      "He started yelling back at the female."
      "And this - at this point, what did he yell?"
      "Exactly, I couldn't tell you.  I cannot recall."
      "Do you recall if he was cursing?"
      "I believe he was."
      "Do you recall what he was saying, what cursing words he was speaking?"
      "No.  Like I say, it's been a while, and off the top of my head, I can't remember exactly what he was
saying."
      "When you approached him and you made an assessment of the immediate situation, did you have any
concerns for the safety of you and the safety of officer Akagi?"
      "Yes. ... They were arguing at each other."
      "Was there anything about his size that gave you cause to be concerned?"
      "Yeah."
      "How tall a man are you?"
      "I'm six-two."
      "And how much do you weigh?"
      "260."
      .....
      "So - I mean, you're six-two, and he's five seven?"
      "Yes."
      "Was there something about his size and - that gave you particular concern for your safety or the
safety of officer Akagi?"
      "More of demeanor wise."
      "Now, was the demeanor - whatever he was doing that created his demeanor, do you feel that was
directed toward you or directed toward the woman?"
     "At that time I felt was directed more toward the woman."
      "So you separated him, and he was cursing.  And did you ever get an answer to what this was all
about?"
      "No."
      "And at this time had anybody else come up?"
      "Not - I'm not sure exactly - I can't say for sure if it was right at that time."
      "Would you have been aware and would it have been important to you other people that were around
when you're making this sort of - when you're in this sort of situation?"
      "Yes."
      "Rather critically important; correct?"
      "Yes."
      "So after he didn't respond to your question about what they were arguing about, what was the next
thing that you said or that he said to you?"
      "I asked him for his identification."
      .....
      "Did you ask him for his name first, or did you ask him for his identification first?"
      "I usually ask for their first name.  'What's your first name?' "
      "No response?"
     "Nothing."
      .....
      "Did you make your request for his first name again?"
      "No."
      .....
      Lopes:  "And the second time I asked him for his identification."
      .....
      Mr. Phillips:  "What was his response to your request for the identification?"
      "He asked me for mine - or he told me, he said, 'My identification?  Where's your identification?' "
      "Okay.  And what else did he say?"
      "He was poking his finger in my chest at the time."
      "And you could understand it clearly, everything he had to say?"
      "Yes.  Well, when he was talking to me, you mean?"     
      "Uh-huh."
      "Yes."
      "And he wasn't staggering?"
      "Not that I can recall."
      "So in your police report, you indicate that there was the smell of alcohol?"
      "On his breath, yes."
      "So you knew he had been drinking?"
      "Yes."
      "But that he was not slurring his speech, and he wasn't staggering?"
      "Not that I recall."
      "And so with what hand did he poke you - point his finger at you?"
      "He was using his left hand."
      "He was using his left hand?"
      "Yes."
      "And did he direct it at your - any particular part of your body, any - "
      "My chest area."
      "Your chest area?"
      "Yes. ... "
      "And at that time, where was he looking?"
      "He was looking at me."
      "And what was your response to that?"
      "He - at that time he pushed me back."
      "Okay.  So let me get this straight.  If I understand you correctly, you asked him for his identification?"
      "Yeah."
      "And he asked you for your identification?"
      "Yeah.  And he had his hand up - "
      "And he had his hand up, and he was pointing with his index finger?"
      "Yeah."
      "And he motioned to you pointing how many times - 3?  30?"
      "I can't recall exactly how many times."
      "But it was - and then he took and pushed you in the chest?"
      "With open palm, shoved me."
      "In response to his pointing his finger in your chest, what did you do?"  (underlining 2004)
      "I raised my right hand, and I pushed him back."
      "And where did you push him?"
      "I believe I had him in the chest area."
      "So did you grab him -?"
      "No."
      "-or push him?"
      "I pushed him back to create distance between us."
      "So how much - how many times did he push you on the chest?"
      "Just once."
      "In response to that push, what happened to your body?"
      "I took a couple of steps back.  I mean, he kind of caught me off guard."
      "So you were surprised?"
      "I didn't really expect him to come at me like that, you know, with a push."
      "Did he make a move forward with either one of his feet?"
      "He was bladed to me too."
      "He was bladed to you?"
      “Yeah."
      "Corresponding to your stance?  In other words, he had his left foot forward, and you had your right
foot forward?"
      "Yeah.  I'm usually - I'm left handed, so my gun side is on - my left, so I kept my gun side away from
him.  So my right would be facing him."
      "So your right was facing him, and you were bladed standing at an angle?"
      "Yeah."
      "And he was standing at an angle to you?"
      "Yeah.  And he turned to an angle when I first confronted him."
      "So you were standing at an angle with your right forward?"
      "Right."
      "And this is the way you approached the situation?"
      "Yes."
      "And you asked him  'What is your first name?' "
      "I asked him what was going on first."
      "What was going on?"
      "Yeah."
      "And then, 'What is your first name?'  And then he was standing in a - at an angle to you, or was he
square with you at that point?"
     "He turned."
      "He turned?"
      "I believe his body was turned."
      "He turned and put what part of his body forward, do you recall?"
      "His left leg."
      "His left leg.  And that's when he responded to your request for identification by asking you for your
ID?"
      "Right."
      "And then he raised his left hand and pointed at your chest?"
      "Right."
      "You don't recall how many times he pointed at your chest?"
      "No."
      "And then he pushed you?"
      "Yes."
      "And then he pushed you.  As a result of his push, did he push your body back?"
      "Yes.  I took a couple of steps back."
      "Would it be your testimony that the force of his push is why you took two steps back?"
      "Yes."
      "Did you do anything other than that to try to respond to and react to his pushing you in your chest?"
      "I didn't understand that one."
      "So the - he pushed you back, and you fell back two steps?"
      "Yes."
      "All right.  Did you do anything else to recover from that?"
      "No.  I just got my balance back."
      "And then what did you do?"
      "That's when I raised my right hand and pushed him back to create the distance."
      "And what was his response to that?"
      "He went back a couple steps and sat down on this wall."  (indicating)
      "Did - was it the force of your hand on his chest that made him move back, or did he back up
voluntarily and sit down?"
      "I would say it was the force of me creating the distance."
      "So you pushed him with force, and it was your intention at that time to push him back?"
      "To push him back, yes, that was my intention."
      "So if he was aggressive, why would you push him away from yourself rather than try to clasp with
him?"
      "To create a safer distance to give me more reaction time."
      "What was his response other than moving - being pushed back a couple steps?  What did he say or
do?"
      "At that point when he sat on the wall, I told him he was under arrest, and that's when officer Wingo
came in and handcuffed him."
      "Before that time, were you aware of officer Wingo?"
     "I believe they pulled up just when the incident occurred."
      "The incident you're indicating would be your shoving of him?"
      "The initial shove when he shoved, yes."
      .....
      "Officer Wingo came on the scene.  He went behind you and behind Mr. Arney and was handcuffing
him?"
      "Behind Mr. Arney."
      "Behind Mr. Arney?"
      "Right."
      "So he came either one side or the other of yours?"
      "I guess.  What side he came on, I can't tell you for sure."
      "And what - where was the female at this time?"
      "She was still around this area with officer Akagi."
      "You want to put just a dot there and put -"
     "I'll put a circle."
      "Okay.  Put a circle.  That would indicate the female.  And what happened after officer Wingo put the
cuffs on Mr. Arney?"
      "He was still argumentative with us about why he was being arrested."
      "And were you aware of any other officers on the scene at this time?"
      "Officer Aina was there at this time."
      "And where was officer Aina?"
      "I believe he was about here with me." (indicating)
      "Around there.  You're indicating between you and the woman?"
      "Yeah, on the sidewalk area."
      "Did officer Aina have anything to do with Mr. Arney after he was seated on the wall?"
      "They transported him to the station."

      I can only suppose that Ronald Lopes cannot exhale without lying.  Why he chose to elaborate his
already fictional account is beyond understanding otherwise.  Not only did this version vary from the
other officers' versions, Lopes contradicted his earlier testimony, especially in the 1996 trial.
 In the trial, Lopes stated that there were homeless people nearby, but in the deposition they weren't
there.  In the trial he agreed that I was just standing in front of him - "He had his hands to his side..."  
The new version has me turning and putting my left foot forward, then either poking at his chest or
poking him in the chest.  Especially as he alleges that I was obviously disturbed and yelling, it's hard to
believe that any human being, let alone a police officer, would perceive all of these warning signs and
still be surprised by a push.  His description of a "bladed" stance makes this even more unbelievable, as
this would have placed my left arm in opposition to his right arm, making it almost impossible for me to
reach past and poke, then push him in the chest, especially as I am under five feet five inches, and he is
six two.
      In the trial he alleged that he pushed me " .. on the way back just to create space cause I felt myself
going back," and agreed when Ms. Tulang asked, "But at the same time, you pushed Mr. Arney back?"
Lopes: "Yeah, instinct, my hands came up."  
      In the new version, he took a couple of steps back, then recovered his balance, and then "... that's
when I raised my right hand and pushed him back ..."  It's interesting to imagine the arm play involved,
and too bad that Mr. Phillips didn't ask - did Lopes mean that I (allegedly) reached up and pushed him
with my left arm crossing over his right (which would have me awkward and off balance), and then he
counter-pushed under my left, or did I reach under his right arm (and how would I contact his chest?)
and his counter push was over mine?  Or what?
      And if he took two steps back before he pushed me, did he mean that I followed him forward for two
steps?

      Other items caught my eye.  Lopes couldn't remember a single word of what he claimed I was yelling
at Wendy, but was very specific about my words to him.  None of the officers could recall from which
direction they approached the scene of the incident, and they all alleged that it took some time to get
there, no matter who was driving, or where (?) they had started from.  It was obvious to me that they
hadn't scripted these answers like they had done with "left hand open palm," or "strong smell of
alcoholic beverages."  Despite my misgivings about Civil Court justice in general, and Mr. Phillips in
particular, these depositions gave me the impression that we had a solid case.


      Arnold T. Phillips, April 23rd, 2001:
     "Following up on the last letter we have the deposition of Lauer but the City thinks that it helps them.  
We have to decide if we want to bring him in for the trial.  I will contact him and find out if he will
come.  We will have to pay his expenses but I think that we will have to do it if we can.  I will get a
copy of your deposition and send it to you for your review.
      "A tough question is what to do about Wendy my feeling is to let her stay out of it.  The problem is
that the City may find her and bring her in.  We can cross that bridge when we get to it unless you want
me to try and contact her first.
      "There is still a deposition of Wingo and the City said that they would bring him in at their expense.  I
have notice the deposition of the doctor at the emergency room at Kaiser and got his records.  They do
not look from my reading of them that there was a complaint about a head injury.  Do you remember
something different?  I am going to try to talk to the doctor before taking his deposition to see if he will
be a good witness."

      A. Arney, April 29, 2001:
      "I can't imagine how Lauer's deposition could help the City, and have to see it to make any comments.
 I'm sure that he (or anyone) did not see me push any police officer, because that action never occurred.
 It would probably be better to have him there in person for the trial - the only problem I have with that
is the slow pace of my finances, but I'm willing to cover the costs.  If you decide to bring him in, I
would suggest securing a flight as soon as possible, as airline prices seem to be going only up.
      "Regarding my visit to Kaiser, I did tell the doctor that I had been beaten unconscious, but don't know
how visible my wounds were.  Wendy was the one who said that my ear was bleeding, but I don't know
if that was inside or our, or how the doctor perceived it.  They did ask if I wanted x-rays or a brain
scan, but I declined because of the expense.
       "The City would be foolish to bring Wendy in, as she's the one person who could confirm that we
were walking along Nimitz  (not arguing at Nimitz and River), that I did not push anybody, that the
officers hit me repeatedly, that I was prone on the ground, and that neither Wingo nor any other officer
got my basic information from me (they got my address, place of employment, etc. from Wendy while I
was lying on the ground).  From our point of view, she might be a bad witness because she is emotional
and easily confused, but she was right there, and should be consistent on the points I just mentioned.
      "She has gotten in touch with me occasionally.  She has been expecting to testify, and, as you might
recall, is tremendously afraid of retaliation if she does so.  There are reasons for her having this fear,
and I don't know any way around it.  I'll see if I can contact her and have her call you.
      "One minor point I recall from the officers' depositions - if the wall I was sitting on is a retaining wall, it
has been filled in since the incident.  In Sept. 1996 it was free standing, with a drop of about two feet
behind it.
      "As you advised on March 30, I have taken July 3 as a firm trial date, and am trying to get a good
price for a trip.  I'll probably take the best thing available within a week or so."

      Arnold T. Phillips, May 5th, 2002:
      "Today I received an assignment for trial on June 4th on Maui.  The trial is complex litigation and I feel
that it will take me through the July 2nd date for our trial.  I will be asking the court to consider another
date this week.
      "Steven Lauer said that he can come out for the trial.  He wants to come and have is girl friend finance
come with him because they may stay here.  What do you want me to tell him about the airfare?"

      Arnold T. Phillips, May 7th, 2001:
      "Please do not contact Wendy.  If you have let me know exactly when you did and how.  Do you
know her address and phone number.  It is best if she stay in the background.  Now that you have
contacted her we may have to bring her in just so it does not look like we are are not trying to hide
anything."

      A. Arney, May 15, 2001:
      "I received your May 5 letter just a bit too late to change my flight arrangements.  I purchased tickets
through the internet that will have me in Honolulu from June 23 through July 13.  These are
unchangeable and non-refundable.  If we can't conclude the trial by July 13 I suppose I can take a loss
on the return trip and book another one, but I'd rather not.  Not working for three weeks is already a
strain on my budget.
      "I have been expecting to cover Lauer's flight and hotel expenses (For 5 to 7 days) as long as he
doesn't stay at the Hilton Penthouse.  Reasonable rates can be found at the Pagoda or the Big Surf, and
airoutlet.com can possibly find a good price to and from Hawaii (or segments of that trip ... my niece
recently got a cheaper round trip from North Carolina to L.A. than I can get from Denver).  Of course
Lauer can bring his girlfriend, as long as I don't have to pay for her.
      "Wendy called me on my friend's phone the last night of my November trip to Honolulu in 1999.  We
met briefly, she said she was still expecting to testify, and I told her we weren't planning to use her.  She
has called me a few times here in Colorado and we pretty much run over the same conversation.  I
believe she has the same pager #  that she has had for years."

      Arnold T. Phillips, May 20th, 2001:
      "Enclosed is the order resetting the trial date.  I will be forwarding the same information on the new
date to Steve Lauer.
      "I will not call Wendy and hope that she does not contact us.  Please screen your calls to keep her
from contacting you.  My feeling is that her testimony will only weaken our case because of her
statements about the tow trucks.  It will affect your credibility.  I would rather go with Steven Lauer.  
We may have to use her especially if they bring her in but she is a wild card and it is hard to tell how the
jury will react to her if she has a bad day and the pressure of testifying in the courtroom with the judge
etc. will increase the pressure on her."

      The new trial date was September 11, 2001.  I was unable to re-schedule the flight, so took the trip to
Honolulu in June anyway, even though it meant missing three weeks of work.  I finally cleaned out and
vacated my storage locker there, and at least eliminated that expense.
      I couldn't understand - and still don't understand - what Mr. Phillips meant about Wendy's tow truck
statements being detrimental to our case.  She couldn't remember the name of the company they were
from, and I recall that she and Mr. Mrkva from the Police Commission went around and about the
subject at least once.  My impression during the incident had been that I was surrounded by more than
four officers, and that they were blocking the scene of their crime from public view, but my glasses
were off, and I was getting beaten, so I didn't have the opportunity to see much of anything besides
Ronald Lopes.

      A. Arney, August 4, 2001:
      "I am again searching for a reasonable fare to Honolulu, but have put off purchasing a ticket in hopes
that prices might go down as summer ends.  I'm projecting to arrive there September 7 or 8, which
should give us a few days for pre-trial conferencing.
      "I hope that Sept. 11 will be a more reliable trial date than the others have been.  Does the Court have
any standards regarding re-scheduling, or can that be done right up to the last minute?  I sure don't want
to arrive in Honolulu and find out that we have been postponed again.  In any event, please let me know
as soon as possible if that looks likely.  Our letters moved too slowly the last time around - don't hesitate
to call me if anything looks imminent.
      "Should I bring anything, such as articles I wrote in Sunbums, or photos like those I sent you earlier?  
Notes and comments on the various depositions?  In fact, could you send me a copy of Lauer's
deposition, so I can review it ahead of time?"

      Arnold T. Phillips, August 8th, 2001:
      "We have a firm trial setting for November 27th, 2001.  This will be the trial date I will be confirming
with Steven Lauer that he can be here.  I want to bring him in several days early to work with him a
little.  The witnesses will be you, him and the emergency room doctor.
     "We should pick the jury and complete our case in three days and the government should take about
the same time."

      Arnold T. Phillips, October 16th, 2001:
 "We are moving ahead for the November trial date.  The final pretrial is set for October 25.  Steven
Lauer has gotten his prepaid ticket.  What is your travel schedule?  If you could be here a week in
advance that would be good.
      "I have not received any return correspondence and please drop me a line with your telephone number.
Also tell me if there has been any contact with Wendy.  She is listed as a witness for the government."

      A. Arney, October 21, 2001:
      "I am scheduled to arrive in Honolulu the evening of November 20, and expect that I will be available
for the entire week before the trial.  I'm not sure yet where I'll be staying, but will of course let you
know as soon as I do.
      "It would be helpful if you could get me a copy of Lauer's deposition, as I'm sure that he should erode
the officers' credibility, particularly with respect to the timing and positions of myself, Wendy, and the
officers.  I am more certain than ever that there was no dispatch, the officers were not roaming around
looking for Wendy and me, and that they were essentially in or near that parking lot.  According to W.
Matsubara, no records of any dispatch were known to exist as of November 10, 1999.
      "Please do your best to avoid any further delays of this trial.  Beyond the fact that I purchased a ticket
in vain the last time around, and that I have cursed these officers and their lies every waking hour since
the incident (this is going beyond 30,000 hours, and has been a severe drain on my mental health), there
is the ongoing uncertainty about air travel in the country.  I BITTERLY object to any more
continuances."

      A. Arney, October 23, 2001:
      "As luck would have it, I was returning from mailing you my travel plans, and there was your letter of
October 16. ...
      "My phone number is the same as it's been for the last three years, and is included above. ...
      "The last time I spoke with Wendy - about a year ago - she said that we cannot lose, because we have
her (as a witness).  Despite her fears of H.P.D. retaliation, she expected (and seemed to want) to testify.
 I told her several times that we would not call her, as I could not provide protection.  I can't believe that
she has turned against me for no reason - if she is going to testify for the City, it may be that she has
beguiled them as a way to get to the witness stand. ... All in all, she will be a bad witness for the City,
for the same reasons she would be a bad witness for us. ...  She may be a wild card, but she is our wild
card.  Have no fear."

      Arnold T. Phillips, October 29th, 2001:
      "There was a trial against the City and County over the shooting death of someone during an arrest.  
The case was settled and we took there spot on the trial calendar.  The settlement was pending the
approval of the City and County council's vote approving the figure.  The council voted against the
settlement figure and the case went back on the trial calendar.  We have had our trial pushed from our
trial date.
      "I am awaiting a new date.  I have asked for a new date in the last half of January 2002 and we will
see this week if we can get that date.
      "Everyone was taken by surprise by the failure of the settlement and having to go to trial on the case.
But we are behind this case.  I am concerned about the contact with Wendy and would like for you to
give me another letter about this spelling out the contacts in detail - the dates, duration, whether by letter
or phone and the subject of the communications."

      A. Arney, November 12, 2001:
      "Since I left Hawaii in the spring of 1998, all of my "contact" with Wendy has been at her discretion
and convenience, and sorry to say, I didn't log any of the dates or durations.  Even though I wanted to
stay on good terms with her, she was quite offended that I had left, and didn't acknowledge letters that I
sent through 1998 (one or two letters, one of which was returned unopened).
      "Two days after my deposition with the City (Nov. 25, 1999) she contacted me on my friend's cell
phone, and we met briefly (20-30 minutes) at a Liliha snack shop.  Her conversation was disjointed -
she was afraid to speak aloud, and wanted to write questions and answers on a napkin - so I'm not sure
if I pieced her statements together correctly.  Apparently she had moved from her Aiea house, leaving it
for her son to live in.  A detective from H.P.D. tracked her to her new residence and insisted that she
sign an agreement to not testify.  He also wanted to find out where I was.  I told her that the City (Mr.
Matsubara) already knew what my address was, and that if anyone else wanted it, she had my full
permission to give it to them (so that she did not have to feel that she had to protect me, and could not
be threatened for doing so).  I also told her that we were not planning to call her to testify anyhow, so
she should not worry about that.
      " ... I'm sorry if I didn't mention this before - I wasn't sure if I understood her correctly (and still am
not sure), or if she was serious.  I almost forgot this incident.
      "I sent her $450 around Christmas and New Years Day, to repay her for the money she had given
Kaiser for my E.R. visit the night of the incident, and she wrote to thank me for that in April 2000,
adding that she was still being followed.  Since then she has called on the phone a few times, about
every six months, stating, as I have related, that she still expects to testify for us.  She has never said
anything to the contrary.
      .....
      "My travel agent says that the ticket I purchased for this month can be changed (for a fee) for up to
one year.  I look forward to another "firm" court date."

      A. Arney, December 26, 2001:
      "Has the court made any progress toward getting us a new trial date?  In your letter of October 29 you
said that you would try for something in the second half of January, which is obviously drawing near.  I
would like to arrive a week before the trial, as per your earlier suggestions, and I'll probably need at least
a week notice before I fly, just to ensure travel arrangements and time off from work.  My sister is not
here at this time, so I will also have to make double payments for utilities, and arrange for care for her
pets and plants.  As long as the date has been postponed already, I hope that the new one will give me
enough time to take care of these things.  Please let me know as soon as you find out.
      "Has the City confirmed or denied that they intend to use Wendy as a witness?  If I read the Rule 16
Scheduling Order correctly, they are supposed to describe concisely the substance of the testimony to be
given three weeks before the trial.  Hopefully this will give you time to send me a copy of that
description, so we can be prepared to deal with it.  The same applies to Lauer's deposition - especially as
the City seems to think that it helps their case - it would be prudent for me to examine it in time to make
some suggestions.  Time permitting, please send whatever is available from both Wendy and Lauer."

      Arnold T. Phillips, February 12th, 2002:
 "We are set for trial on March 27th, 2002.  There may be matters which I will need to discuss with
with you between now and trial.  Please call me with the best telephone number. ... Steven Lauer came
to Hawaii before Christmas but his phone is not now working.  We are trying to contact him through his
contacts in Florida."

      Once again, our letters passed each other in transit ...                                                   

      A. Arney, February 15, 2002:
      "Has the Court made any progress toward getting us a new trial date?  If you have sent me anything
since October 29, I haven't received it.  My concerns are the same as before - that I have about three
weeks notice so I can arrange time off from work, confirm travel plans, and make sure that my sister's
place will be taken care of.   Of course I hope that the court can come up with a truly firm date.  You
can take it as a given that I firmly, permanently, and bitterly object to any further delays.
      "Has the City confirmed whether or not they intend to call Wendy as a witness?  If so, have they come
up with a description of the substance of her testimony?
      "Is there a problem with me getting a copy of Lauer's deposition?  This is at least the third time I am
inquiring about this ..."  (Note 2004:  This was the fifth time I asked for Lauer's deposition.)

      February 25, 2002:
      When I arrived home from work, there was a message from Mr. Phillips on the phone answering
service:  Lauer was missing, but the City had made a settlement offer of $10,000.  Phillips wanted me to
contact him, but by the time I returned his call, it was too late.
      I contacted Mr. Phillips the next day.  He confirmed that the City had offered a $10,000 settlement,
and that Lauer was indeed missing.  If we decided to go to trial at this point, the costs - especially to find
Lauer again - would go up, probably to the extent of thousands of dollars.  Phillips suggested that I
compile a summary of my expenses to date for this case, and call him back the next day.  Meanwhile,
he would suggest a $15,000 settlement to the City.

      Wednesday, February 27, 2002:
      I tallied my expenses - not including the $1500 retainer - and related to Mr. Phillips that so far I had
invested $17,535 in my pursuit of justice.
      On Thursday, Mr. Phillips called and related that the City had raised their offer to $11,000.  If I agreed
to this, he would set the wheels in motion, and, pending approval by the City Council on March 21, we
could complete the process shortly after that.
      Considering that I was paying Mr. Phillips for his services, and the taxpayers of Hawaii were paying
HPD, the Police Commission, and the City Attorney's Office for their services, this struck me as the
fishiest  deal offered by employees to their employers that I had encountered in my life.
      As of March 30, 2001, the City had offered nothing, in terms of a settlement.  A few months later, Mr.
Phillips started relating to me that the City was going to call Wendy as a witness, which worried him.  
Wendy had called me in February '01, and said that she was moving to the mainland, and now Lauer
had disappeared again.  Both of my witnesses had disappeared, and all of a sudden the City - which
thought that Lauer's deposition aided their case - was making a settlement offer.  If I wanted to locate
Lauer, I could expect to fork out more thousands of dollars.  The most likely interpretation of this
combination of events was that The City and Mr. Phillips were in collusion.

      I balanced the situation in my mind.  The U.S. Civil Court obviously did not have any standards
regarding continuances; they would keep on extending court dates as long as a lawyer could exhale a
request for continuance.  My most reliable witness - Mr. Lauer - kept disappearing, at least according to
Mr. Phillips.  Wendy, of whom Mr. Phillips professed to be deathly afraid, had also disappeared.
I had a choice between shelling out thousands of dollars for very questionable results, or accepting this
fishy offer from the City.  In either case the guilty officers would not be brought to justice - the citizens /
taxpayers of Hawaii would foot the bill, and Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi would skip home free,
picking up their paychecks on the way.
      I grilled Mr. Phillips as much as I could regarding the circumstances I was in, and the implications of
accepting a settlement.  Yes, Steve Lauer was missing, and could not be contacted (allegedly).  Would
accepting a settlement affect any of my first amendment (free speech) rights, I asked?  In other words,
would I still be allowed to speak and write publicly about this case, without violating any U.S. laws?  
Mr. Phillips said:  Yes, that there are some rights that I couldn't give away even if I agreed to give them
away.  Why was the City changing its position of offering nothing, and now suggesting a settlement?

(What I didn’t ask was if they had inspected the mug photos and found evidence of blows to my face, or

 if the CAD records showed records of dispatches that night, but did not have any record of Lopes, Aina,

 Wingo, or Akagi being sent to Nimitz and River, or if Lauer had seen me being assaulted on the wall.  Or

had they confirmed that HPD did track Wendy to her new residence, and attempted to coerce her?) 

Phillips said that upon review, it was obvious that something had happened to me that night.


      The responsible agencies in Hawaii and the United States were not interested in bringing domestic
terrorists to justice.  The Honolulu Police Commission had disregarded my witnesses, conducted a
flimsy investigation, and sided with the criminal officers as a matter of daily business.  The FBI
conducted a weaker investigation than the Police Commission, and the Civil Rights Division concluded
that they could see no prosecutable offence.  If I wanted to continue to throw good money after bad, the
U.S. justice system was perfectly willing to help me. (See more about the FBI in Part 5)
      Although I was extremely reluctant to let Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi “do whatever they wanted
to, and I couldn't do anything about it,"  it was obvious that the justice departments of Hawaii and the
United States were light years away from achieving justice.  I asked Mr. Phillips again if accepting a
settlement would bar me in any way from speaking or writing about the incident and its aftermath.  He
said no - I could not give away my rights.
      The most heavy-hearted agreement I have ever entered into in my life was the settlement I signed with
the City and County of Honolulu, releasing them from the consequences of the criminal acts of their
employees - Ronald Lopes, Wallace Aina, David Wingo, and Dru Akagi.  It was as if I accepted dirty
money to join in their conspiracy.

      Arnold T. Phillips, May 1st, 2002:
      "Enclosed is the release for your signature and return to me by express mail.  The check is waiting at
the Corporation Counsel's office.  When I have gotten the release back I will trade for the draft.  It will
be in your name and my name I will endorse the check and deposit it in the trust account.  When the
check has cleared we can make the disbursements."

      Arnold T. Phillips, May 28th, 2002:
      "We are in receipt of all the papers and the draft has been received and deposited.
      "Enclosed please find your check for $7337.00 which represents 66% of the settlement.
      "If there is ever any need for further use of our services please let us know.
      "This will conclude the representation of you on this matter.  Let me know if you have any questions."

      A. Arney, June 5, 2002:
      "I write to confirm that I received your check, to thank you for all that you have done, and to make
one last request, if I may.
      "Accepting this settlement is a bitter defeat for me.  Once Lauer disappeared, there seemed to be no
option.  As you know, I actually lose about $10,000 as we exit the Civil Court process, and the money is
the least of my losses.  I used to be a True Believer in the American story of equal justice for all.  Now I
have absolutely no trust in the police, the police commission, or any of the government officials that
they hide behind.  Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi strut around like heroes instead of being treated like
the criminals they are, and I have had to wade through years of stress and confusion.
      "For my own peace of mind (?) and my records could you please send me copies (or originals, if you
don't want them) of whatever it is I have paid for?  Frank Saunders comes to mind - did he actually do
anything, or was his fee just a retainer?  What about the research done on harassment cases?  Could I
get a copy of the 1996 court proceedings, and one of Lauer's deposition, please.
      "I am in touch with Dr. Ginandes, and can ask him for his records myself, but regarding all the other
records, they are in Hawaii and I am here in Colorado.  I will gladly cover any expense incurred in
making and sending any copies, of course.
      "I imagine that this has been as fruitless for you as it has for me.  I deeply appreciate and thank you for
all that you have done.  Best wishes for the future.
                                                                             Sincerely Yours,
                                                                             Alfred E. Arney"


      Arnold T. Phillips, June 10, 2002:
      "Dear Al;
      "We will put all of your papers into several banker boxes and send them to you fourth class mail.
      "You should be relieved that it is over and realize that it is past history.  You are in a good situation in
Colorado and you have well started a new life there, focus your attention on the present and let theses
bygones be bygones.
      "Let me know if you have any questions.
                                                                             Kind Regards,
                                                                             Arnold T. Phillips II"




      October 31, 2003:
      The banker boxes still have not arrived.  It is time to record this history and make it public.
      Trick or treat, L.A.W.A.
      Hard luck, Arnold.


      This entire process has been to the shame of Hawaii, the United States, and me.  Ronald Lopes,
Wallace Aina, David Wingo, and Dru Akagi are apparently not capable of feeling shame, so they are
excluded from that statement.


      About these copies of my and Mr. Phillips' letters:  I have tried to be as accurate as possible, but it's
likely that the spelling and grammar are slightly better than in the originals.  The spelling and grammar
correction functions in my computer probably verged on shorting out when they had to deal with pidgin
English and Phillips' fractured sentences (and sometimes mine), and I sometimes forgot that I was trying
to transcribe letters and interviews verbatim.  Some "corrections" were therefore made inadvertently, but
I estimate that the accuracy is better than 99.9%.  I hope that the reader is as amused as Mr. Phillips
and I were frustrated.
      I hope, too, that this account has not been too exhaustive, especially going into extended descriptions of
depositions and events.  In fact, this is a very short version of the six years - over 30,000 waking hours -
of stress and frustration that I went through seeking in vain for justice in the United States.
      If you want to find justice in a U.S. Civil Court, bring a dictionary into the courtroom.  Look under the
letter J.
      Thanks for your patience.
                                                                         Al Arney
                                                                         November 11, 2004