Police Brutality: An American Epidemic

Police Brutality, Honolulu Style To All American Citizens: Well, my attempt to fight back has come down to this web site. As unsophisticated as it is, Polawa has allowed me to report on, and to some extent expose what happened on the streets and behind the scenes in Hawaii's legal procedures. Polawa is not intended to be a diatribe against all police officers in general, or HPD in particular. Specific individuals committed crimes against me, certain individuals aided and abetted them, and these are the people that I have written about. I have relatives and friends in law enforcement, and know first hand that police personnel, like everybody else, are individuals. Nonetheless, a Google search for Police Brutality (04-08-06) yielded more than10 million results, and Police Misconduct produced 8.78 million results. At Yahoo the results were 3.12 million for brutality and 2.92 million for misconduct. MSN weighed in with more than 498 thousand and 271 thousand respectively. Obviously there is a lot more going on with crooked cops than just Polawa. Many of these results (sites) are advertisements by lawyers seeking clients. Some are governmental or research studies and reports, and a lot are sites created by victims like me, as their only way of achieving any kind of redress or justice. Quite a few are interactive, and list hundreds of individual cases that probably drive the total number of results way over 10 million. Racial profiling is a recurrent theme. I suggest that economic profiling should be included with this; police assaults happen to people who look like they can't afford the retainer for an attorney (let alone thousands of more dollars for court costs, depositions, and the like), and a majority of these happen to be from minority groups. While there was definitely a time in Hawai'i that long haired Caucasians were as despised a minority as The Islands have ever seen, I suspect that Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi conspired against me because I looked like an economic no - show. (Not to preclude the fact that they are sadistic bullies.) I am trying to put my experience into the context of the overall picture of police misconduct in the United States. Some officers are sadistic brutes. They get away with numerous crimes because 1) American police are united behind a wall of conspiracy that shields them all from being charged by each other, no matter what they do (known as The Blue Wall); 2) the costs of initiating and continuing court procedures are prohibitive; and 3) institutions, like Police Commissions, are slanted and biased heavily in favor of criminal officers. The idea that police could limit crimes against citizens and hatred against themselves seems to be a concept that has never entered the police mentality. *Police policies* *and government institutions support and enable police brutality.* Numerous TV shows and magazine articles that I have seen reveal that **even in their training process, rookie officers are told not to charge or expose other officers that they see committing crimes. They may, perhaps, discourage other officers from being abusive, or try to stop criminal police activity, but to actually turn in a fellow officer for committing crimes is considered a betrayal. Somehow, this is rationalized as a code of honor. Police officers swear to fight crime, unless it is being committed by other officers. This is strange logic; an aberration that only serves to encourage lawlessness. In Hawaii, one of the best places for a criminal to be is in the Police Department. They won't get apprehended, charged, or prosecuted, and their access to public records and trust is enhanced a hundredfold more than that of ordinary citizens'. Besides alerting the public to the crimes and characters of my own assailants, I would like to suggest that there are ways to address and minimize police assaults on citizens, and these ways involve police conduct in a pro-active sense. Honest officers don't have to feel that the situation is "them against the world," or that they must bond with dishonest officers; and US citizens shouldn't be made to feel that they are in danger of physical abuse when experiencing even the slightest contact with police. In particular, I would like to suggest a model that in my experience stood out in stark contrast to the behavior of the officers who confronted me: I had the privilege of knowing HPD Sgt. Hiram Bell, because his son, Hiram Jr., was one of my best friends when I was at the University of Hawaii in the early 1970s. Sgt. Bell was one of the model peacemakers in HPD, the type of officer who would approach situations with the intention of de-fusing potentially explosive confrontations, and the style to achieve that. When I knew him he was a trainer at HPD, and he projected a sense of calm - he knew that he was an authority, he didn't seem to worry about his image, or whether or not the people he was dealing with hated or loved cops. Sgt Bell was centered and self secure, and when he showed up, people understood instinctively that whatever was happening, it was now under control, and it was unlikely that anyone would get hurt. I learned some of this from Sgt. Bell himself, from talking to him, and visiting the family home in Palolo, but much more came to me years later, when I was a taxi driver. In conversations with my Palolo bound passengers I would relate that I knew Sgt. Bell's family, and numerous times they related stories about how Sgt. Bell had saved them personally, or stepped into confrontations to emerge with total control and pacification. One passenger related that Sgt. Bell would offer rides up into Palolo valley, which were especially appreciated on rainy nights. Another one told me how Sgt. Bell came to arrest him (on suspicion of being the Palolo Sniper), “With tears in his eyes." Sgt. Bell knew the individual he was dealing with and commiserated with him, and my passenger told me that he had nothing but respect for Sgt. Bell. Another officer, who has requested that I not use his name, saw me practicing my trumpet regularly at various parking places along Tantalus Road and Round Top Drive, and offered to rent me a space on his property, so I wouldn't have to dodge rain and drive-by harassment while trying to perfect my art. That opportunity was a godsend, and saved me months of extreme effort and hardship. Thanks to that officer's generosity, I was able to pursue my interest in music, and perform as the lead instrument in the band Cool Breeze. Sgt. Bell served in the 1970s, though, and the other officer was an exception for his time. When I told him that I knew Sgt. Bell, he shook his head wistfully and said that he had known Bell, and that it was unfortunate that Sgt. Bell and his type of peacemaking officers were disappearing from HPD. By the 1990s, when I was driving taxi, and delivering pizzas for Magoo's, HPD officers were far more likely to arrive at a scene confrontationally, yelling and pushing before they asked the first question. Everybody they dealt with was automatically treated as Public Enemy Number One, no matter what the situation was. This culminated for me personally when I attempted to walk away from a simple argument with my girlfriend, and officers Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi jumped in to commit their own crimes, and later expand upon them. One thing I learned growing up in ethnically diverse Hawai'i is that it is wise to monitor those who are in the same race or group as you. The people in your group create stereotypes that you will be judged by, and police officers are in this same situation with other officers. If officers are tired of being typed as "Bullies in Blue," they would do well to weed out the psychopaths in their ranks, instead of shielding them behind a Blue Wall. Having said all of this, I invite you to peruse the conclusions I have drawn from my experiences and interactions with the various law enforcement and judicial people that have appeared in this account. The first government entity that I encountered after my assault was the Honolulu Police Commission. As you might recall, Wendy and I made a complaint at the Commission the day after the beating ... POLICE COMMISSION II** The Police Commission wrote me on April 17, 1997, to say that they had conducted an extensive investigation of my complaint, and discussed the case at their April 16 meeting. "On the basis of the available facts from the investigation and meeting discussion, the Commission found there was insufficient evidence to support the Discourtesy-Degrading Language and Harassment charges and was unable to determine that the actions were committed or that there was responsibility on the part of the officers. In regard to the Malicious Use of Force charge, the Commission found that the officers had acted accordingly within the guidelines established by the Honolulu Police Department." "The Commission's investigation included the interview of all available witnesses to the incident and the review of all documented evidence and information. ..." This sounded like the Commission had made a thorough and complete investigation. As months went by, though, and I received copies of their documents, it became obvious that the quality of their reviews, and the methods used in their interviews, were slanted heavily in favor of the officers. As I mentioned in Police Commission I, my initial statement, given on September 27, 1996, was quite short, and if Commissioner Cluney had any questions, they did not show up on the transcript: "My girlfriend and I, we were having an argument. We were walking along Nimitz Highway. I was trying to get away from her. She was trying to argue with me. We crossed Nuuanu Stream, going Ewa, and at the corner by the parking lot several officers approached us. They drove up in their cars. "We were separated. One of the officers asked me for my I.D., and I jokingly asked him for an I.D. The officer showed me the stitches on his chest very closely. The name I recall was AINA, A-I-N-A. As I recall I took my wallet (out), but nobody else requested my I.D. I think I put my wallet back a few minutes later. I did take it out, initially. I was going to show my license. "Then I was told to sit on the wall, and they proceeded to badge (badger) me or taunt me. They never asked what was happening with my girlfriend, but the conversation covered several subjects. None of which related to my girlfriend and I. "Anyhow, at one point I was punched on the left side of the head. I could not see who did it. A minute or so later I was punched on the right side. Then repeatedly, I was hit on the left and right, and then left and right again. There was a total of four that I recall. "All this time I was sitting and talking to the officers. I don't know who punched me. I was talking to these people. I believe I was punched one more time. I landed in the dirt on the other side of the wall and at that point I couldn't get up. I was too woozy. I laid there. "They kept insisting that I get up. One of them called me an asshole, which I never complained about that. I just recalled it. "At some time they put the handcuffs on me. And as we left the scene, before they pulled me up, I heard an officer say, "If he makes a complaint, we'll call it harassment." From that point I was taken to the police station and booked. I don't recall the name of the officer.. In fact, I believe it wasn't officer Aina, I just believe he was there. This was termed a "statement," taken on Friday, 9-27-'96, at 1330 hours. One would expect that Mr. Cluney would have had some questions or comments, but nothing to that effect was included in the copies forwarded to me. As far as my attorney and the general public (and the Police Commission's April 16th meeting?) were informed, that was all that was said, period. On the other hand, Wendy’s statement, also referred to as an "interview," started at 1340 hours, and was recorded in a question and answer format that went on for ten pages. As I noted in Police Commission I, Cluney led Wendy into several topics and directions that weren't even vaguely initiated by her or me. Earlier, I offered a few of the exchanges - this time I've included the entire interview, so you can judge for yourself whether or not Cluney gave her a fair hearing. And, of all these thousands of words in Polawa, there are quite a few references to Wendy - it's appropriate that she be allowed to tell her side of the story. In terms of her being a good witness or not, I hope that you will agree that despite being emotional and easily confused, she was undoubtedly sincere, and honest. I've tried not to comment too much, but as you will see, there were times when I just had to jump in. Cluney: "Wendy, I am interviewing you as it relates to an incident that you were involved in at River Street and Nimitz Highway on September 26, 1996, Thursday, between 0130 and 0200 hours, which involved your boyfriend Alfred Arney. Will you briefly tell me what you witnessed and observed, and what you're complaining about? Wendy: "I'm complaining about the violence that I saw and I was screaming in front of another officer that ..." Will you start from the beginning describing what you and Alfred were doing just prior to the officers coming." "Okay. I was holding on to Al because he was mad with me because I didn't want to listen to him. He was supposed to take me home, and he was mad with me because I didn't go home. So he started walking off and all of a sudden I saw all these policemen come." "Were you folks drinking that evening?" "Yes, sir." "Where were you folks drinking?" "Hubba Hubba." "How many drinks did you have?" "I don't know, sir." "What were you drinking?" "I was drinking Kahlua milk and wine, white wine." "What about Alfred, what was he drinking?" "Budweiser all night." "Budweiser all night?" (NOT "all night") "Yes." "You know how many he had?" "No." "Okay. You indicated he wanted to leave the bar, and you did not want to leave the bar?" "Yes, that's correct." "Where was your car parked?" "On Smith Street." Where did Cluney get these questions? As you can see in my complete statement, Cluney hadn't heard anything at all about a bar, drinking, or that we had a car in the area which was Wendy's. Nor did Wendy indicate that our argument started at the Club and was about whether or not to leave it. Ostensibly, Cluney didn't know who we were, or that we were going to walk in to the Police Commission and file a complaint. Was it at all possible that the assaulting officers had anticipated a complaint and alerted the Commission before Wendy and I even got there? In all of the incident reports involving us, the officers claimed that Wendy and I emitted a strong odor of alcohol. That's the way the interview preceded, though. Whereas I was allowed seven uninterrupted paragraphs, Cluney bombarded Wendy with sixty six questions, several of them leading her into topics that she didn't bring up on her own at all. Wendy actually only initiated about ten subjects. Cluney: "On Smith Street?" "Yes." "Isn't that kind of faraway (sic) from where you folks were stopped ..." "Yes. Because there's no ... “... by the officers?" "Yes. Because we were having a disagreement. We were having, ah, he was mad at me." "Was it a physical disagreement or just verbal?" "It was just verbal. He didn't hit me or nothing." "He didn't hit you or anything else like that?" "No." "Okay. Now at River and Nimitz, you indicated how many officers came and stopped you?" (Wendy hadn't indicated any number of officers yet.) "Well, had two cars and those putt-putt cars (Cushmans)." "Motorcycles?" "There were no motorcycles. There were two cars and each car had two policemen. So I know total that, ah, one guy was talking to me and the other five was talking to Al." (Notice: at least six officers were present - two cars and at least two Cushmans.) "Who was talking to you?" "Officer Akaka." "Officer Akaka?" "Yes." "Okay. What did you observe with your boyfriend Alfred?" "I was telling Officer Akaka when he asked. Officer Akaka asked me if my boyfriend hit me. I told him no, he did not. And he asked me in a very rough tone of voice what was I doing around here, why are we here. He did not ask me for any identification. He asked me where did I park my car. Those guys ... everything happened so fast. I remembered one of the officers told him, "Let him go, let him go,” and they took him away. They grabbed his arms and I said "Where are you taking him? Where are you taking him?" I thought that they were just going to throw him in the car, but they didn't." "Did you hear them say he was under arrest?" "No, sir. No, sir." "Okay." "No." "Was your boyfriend cooperating with the officers?" "Yes, yes." "Was he getting smart mouthed with them?" "No. Not to my knowledge, no." "Alright. He was answering all of the questions that was being asked of him?" "They took him away from me." "How far away?" "They grabbed him away." "Okay. How far away?" "Oh, like two feet." "Okay. But he's still within two feet of you?" "Yes, sir." "What were you doing, hanging on to him?" "No. They grabbed him away from me." "Do you know who called the police?" "No, sir." "How long were you folks in the area having your argument?" "Not very long. Maybe like ten minutes." (Up to this point, neither Wendy's account nor mine suggest that we were having an argument in the area where the officers confronted us. It had taken us about ten minutes to walk from the parked car on Smith Street to River and Nimitz. Cluney's question led Wendy into conforming to the officers' allegations that they were dispatched to River and Nimitz.) "Okay. Is there a residence in the nearby area that could have called the police?" "No, no. We was ..." "How about on the other side of the street where River Street is? Is there a new building complex there at the corner of River and Nimitz?" "I don't know. I don't know. I just don't know. Everything happened so fast." "When they pulled ..." "And I am still in shock." "Okay. When they pulled Alfred away from you, what happened?" "I was scared. I was screaming because the officer grabbed him away from me and I told him where you taking him and go ... and those guys. I saw one guy told ... I hear the guy told him to sit down. And all through that, I saw Al sitting down. And they surrounded him and covered off. And all of a sudden, I saw two big tow trucks covering the policemen." (It seems that Wendy had problems with the time element, and tended to remember everything simultaneously. "Through all that I saw Al sitting down." - I suspect was in reference to 90% of the incident. Cluney made no attempt to sort this out, especially in the following passages.) "Tow trucks?" "Yes. Two tow trucks. They were part of it. Because they didn't want to help me. They came real fast at the same time." "Why did the police have tow trucks come?" "I don't know. They were blocking the view where nobody could see Al getting hit or nothing. They were blocking it." "Okay." "Partial like." "Did you see Al being hit?" "Yes, sir." "By ... "The haole guy." "Only one officer out of the five officers?" "Yes, yes. And that's the officer that came back to the officer that was talking to me and I saw his hand motion and say he went hit the guy. And when he say that, I just cry." "You saw his hand motions hit the guy?" "I saw him make a hand motion like a fist saying that he went hit the guy." "He told you that?" "No. He told the officer that. He told officer Akaka that." "That he hit the guy?" "Yes. I saw his hand motion. I saw him." "Okay." "He was right there in front of me, not two feet, not one feet, right in front of me." "Okay. You're saying the tall Caucasian officer..." "Yes, yes." "Hit your boyfriend and then he came back and told officer Akaka and made a hand motion ..." "Yes." “... like he was punching into ..." "Yes." “... the palm of his hand ..." "Yes, yes." “... and told him that he hit the guy?" "Yes." "Okay." "I saw. I saw the hand motion. They were right in front of me. They were not ... they were less than one feet away from me or right in front of me. The guy had his foot on the stone wall, and I was scared because I thought he was going to hit me too." "Okay. Alright. How many times did that Caucasian officer hit Alfred?" "I don't know. I don't know." "I thought you were only one or two feet away from him?" "I don't know. Because officer Akaka was worried that I was looking. I kept on looking towards Al and those officers. I kept on looking over." "Alfred was only from here to there." "No, no, no. Alfred was ... well, I'm not very good in arithmetic, but I can show you just by physical how far he was. Oh, I'm scared, you know." "When they ..." "I'm sorry. I am scared." (How unfortunate that Cluney did not pursue the issue of how far away Wendy was when she saw me get hit as different from how far away the officer was when he came over and told Akaka (Akagi) about it.) "Okay. You only saw the Caucasian officer hit Alfred one time?" "Yes, sir." "What happened to your boyfriend?" "They kept ... next minute when I turned around ... because Akaka was trying to block my view. I was sitting on the little stone wall and next minute I knew, Al was on the ground. He ..." "Okay." " ... he punched him so hard that he fell over backwards on the ground and the guy turned him over ... and I asked him say, "You alright." He goes, “Get up right now. Get up." And one officer just grabbed Al's arm while Al was still on the ground and put a handcuff on him. He twisted his arm." "Uh-huh." "And this is violence." "Being handcuffed is not being violent if he was placed under arrest." "But he was still on the ground ..." "But there was no reason for the punching." ”... and he was uncon ... oh, excuse me, sir, but he was unconscious. He did not get up." "He was unconscious?" "Yes." "And then what happened after that?" "After when they tried to grab him up because Al was unconscious, they put him in the car. They all went to the car." "Did they have to carry him to the car?" "I don't know because Akaka kept on blocking the view. I kept on watching and looking." "Did Alfred get up by himself to get into the car?" "No. He did not get by the ... no, he did not get up by himself. The officer grabbed his wrist and pulled it in the back roughly." "Did only one officer pick up Al while he was unconscious?" "I saw one officer grab his arm, twisted his arm back of him." "Was that the Caucasian officer?" "No. It wasn't him. Was another officer." "Which officer was that?" "I don't know." "What kind of officer, Hawaiian, Japanese?" "I don't know, sir." "Caucasian?" "I don't know." "You don't know. Okay. But he did handcuff Al?" "Everything happened so fast." "What were the other officers doing?" "I saw them." "Were they just standing around?" "Yes. Well, one guy grabbed Al's wrist, his whole entire arm and twisted it while he was still on the ground unconscious. So then I saw the guy grab up and then the guy ... the other officer that was in front of me kept on blocking and blocking, and I kept moving so I can see what was going on." "Alright." "And he kept on telling me ... that officer was interviewing me ... oh, not really interviewing me but he was talking to me rough and he goes, “Go home, beat it." I said no." "He told you to beat it?" "Yes. He kept on telling me to leave." "Which officer was that?" "Akaka." "Akaka. Okay." "He kept on telling me to beat it. I said no." "Alright." "He wanted me to leave for no reason and I was scared to leave. And had the two tow trucks there. Had three guys. When all of the officers left, nobody wouldn't help me. I told those guys to help me." "What were they there for, and what were they going to tow away?" "They were hanging out. They were hanging around. They saw everything." "Okay." "Those are the witness to (too?) the three guys. But they're not going to back those guys because they came and they saw everything." "So the officers took away your boyfriend Alfred?" "Yes." "What did you do?" "I saw them drive away with him. I took their license plate down to HPD. "What did you do after?" "I was standing there and crying." "Okay." "Until ... and I turned around and told the tow truck guys to help me." "Did you ..." "They turned their backs around. They turned their backs. They didn't want ...they didn't say nothing. Nothing. No motion, nothing. They turned their backs on me and then I walked. I just cried all the way." "Okay. Your car was parked at Smith Street?" "Yes, sir." "That's where you went and got your car?" "Yes, sir." "Did you later go down and ... " "No." " ... bail your boyfriend out?" "No. I was so scared. I was talking to a security (guard)." "You went home after that?" "No. I was talking to the security. I wanted somebody to help me." "Help you do what?" "To help me to get my boyfriend. And I was scared because I saw what they did to him." "Okay. I have no further questions to ask of you, Wendy. Thank you. My second Police Commission was with Brad Mrkva. As I related in Police Commission I, Mrkva started by showing me pictures of all the officers working in that area during the date and time of the assault. The pictures all showed happy, smiling officers, none of whom resembled the snapping, snarling bullies who had confronted Wendy and me. I pointed out to Mrkva that they all looked familiar to me, especially because many officers patronized my workplace. I also related that my glasses were off during most of the incident, and that I didn't want to accuse any officer just because he looked familiar. Nonetheless, I did pull out a number of photos that made me recoil when I saw them. Mrkva reported this to the Police Commission as: "Arney was unable to identify any of the officers he had a complaint against. The identification interview was taped, and is included at Enclosure 2. The mug - photographs were also shown to witness Wendy Xxxxxx immediately after the identification interview with Arney. (She) was also unable to identify any of the officers in Arney's complaint." Years later, when I reviewed this for my civil suit, I wrote to my attorney, asking if all of the pictures I had pulled out for Mrkva were incorrect, or if Mrkva just based his conclusion on my reluctance to give a positive identification during the interview. I had named Aina in my first interview with Mr. Cluney, so the possibility that I didn't recognize his photo (or did I?) didn't mean that I hadn't identified him. To this day, I don't know whether my attorney queried the City attorney about this or not - it's one of many questions that were never answered. It's still a good question, though - were any of the photos I selected that day of Lopes, Aina, Wingo or Akagi? Interesting, too - Mrkva interviewed Wendy on the same day that he interviewed me, but that transcript is entirely missing from the documents that the City attorney provided. Mrkva's timing in the next several months was interesting, if not questionable. He didn't interview anyone else until more than three months later, after the harassment charge against me finally got to court and I was acquitted (December 30). Dru Akagi was interviewed on January 2, just three days after the trial, then Mrkva waited two more months before interviewing Ronald Lopes and Wallace Aina. Meanwhile, on February 28, David Wingo - the fourth officer participating in the assault - resigned from HPD and relocated to the mainland. Did Mrkva wait the additional two months to allow Lopes and Aina to consolidate their stories … and / or to allow Wingo time to leave the islands? I speculate that Mrkva waited until after the trial to question the officers, then realized too late that I had been acquitted. Another person who left Hawaii was my primary witness in the trial, security guard Steven Lauer. As I related earlier, I am sure that I gave Lauer's pager number to either Cluney or Mrkva - or both of them - but they never acknowledged having any contact with him. My attorney didn't contact Lauer either until two years later, when a private investigator allegedly located him in North Carolina. Was Lauer "encouraged" to leave the islands? And, a curious bit of timing was Mrkva's search for other witnesses, five months after the incident. "On February 21, 1997, the scene of the incident was canvassed for witnesses. According to all accounts, the incident occurred near Aala Parking at the corner of Nimitz highway and River street ... There are no other businesses close to the lot from where the incident could have been seen or overheard. Therefore, no witnesses could be located." Mrkva doesn't say whether the canvassing was done in the daytime or shortly after midnight, which would have matched the time of the incident. Lopes did testify that there were homeless people within one hundred to one hundred fifty feet. No doubt they had moved on by the time Mrkva got there. And how fortunate for the officers that Mrkva didn't canvass the trial for witnesses, as he would have discovered that there indeed was a witness at the closest business to the scene - right across the street. In their conclusion, the Police Commission stated that “The officers are Exonerated for the Malicious Use of Force charging due to evidence indicating his actions were lawful and proper." Bad grammar aside, there was no such evidence - Mrkva asked the officers if they had assaulted me, and they said no. Just one statement from Lauer would have thrown their entire story into doubt - as he testified that Lopes pushed me to the ground without provocation. This was another issue that I repeatedly asked my attorney to pursue - why the Commission so stubbornly ignored Lauer and his testimony. Unfortunately, my attorney just as stubbornly refused to answer my queries. The Honolulu Police Commission: "Please be assured that we are doing our best to maintain high quality standards for behavior of all personnel in the Honolulu Police Department. As a citizen's review board, we endeavor to gather all available facts, and must be able to determine responsibility for actions. We are sure that you as a citizen want us to act prudently and make careful decisions." To say that the Police Commission failed to do their job would be to imply that they tried. It is obvious that they were aware of the assault on me before I even walked in their door, and slanted their interviews and procedures in such a way as to protect criminal officers. If I had not taken the officers to court, I would have remained ignorant of these procedures; it was shocking to see how little they actually do to protect citizens from HPD misconduct. Arnold T. Phillips II I would like to think that Mr. Phillips was merely the victim of a sloppy secretary or typist, but he so consistently dropped the ball - on a variety of topics - that I wondered more than once if he was being paid to take a dive. The letters he signed and sent to me were more than enough to keep him from passing ninth grade English, and to this day make me wonder why the Hawaii Bar Association even admitted him, let alone recommended him. His handling of my witnesses was the first indication that he had no concept of strategy. In the very first meeting he had with Wendy and me he could see how emotional she was, but nonetheless asked if she would be willing to testify in court. Later, when Frank Saunders met with us, Wendy was apparently still considered to be a reliable witness. In the succeeding years, however, after I had invested thousands of dollars in the case, Phillips seemed determined to keep her entirely out of the picture, even when it seemed that she might be my only corroborating witness. I can - to a degree - understand how Phillips came to back away from Wendy, but the fact that he let Lauer disappear was inexcusable. On March 1, 1997 - the day after we signed our contract - Phillips wrote that he wanted to get statements from all witnesses while we were still in the investigation stage. I had given him more than half of the retainer, he did take statements from Wendy and me, he contacted Ms. Tulang, my public defender, and he requested a copy of the 1996 trial, but it seems that he totally neglected to contact Lauer. Years later a private investigator allegedly located Lauer in South Carolina - at what expense I don't know - and it took many more months and money to get his deposition. Or at least Phillips claimed that a deposition was taken. If there really was one, I never saw it. Mr. Phillips seemed out of touch with himself on a variety of other subjects as well. He sent me a letter recommending Frank Saunders as an expert witness, and shortly after that brought Saunders to my workplace to introduce us personally. Months later, Phillips sent me another letter recommending Saunders, as if I hadn't met him already. In a similar fashion, Phillips seemed to forget that he had referred me to Dr. Shepard Ginandes, and that we had a conversion in which I agreed to be treated by Ginandes on a contingency basis parallel to my agreement with Phillips (that payments would be deferred until the case was won, lost, or settled). Months later, after my treatment had ended, and I had left Hawaii, Phillips sent me a letter indicating that he wanted me to get treatment from Ginandes, and that there was an "agreement" included that I should sign. There was no agreement included with that letter, and I never did get one despite numerous requests for it, but after a few years I did get a bill for over $3,000. In a far more serious lapse, Phillips lost track of the date of our statute of limitations. This error might have cost me the entire case if I hadn't caught it, and got Phillips to file the lawsuit on time. Forgetting the details regarding when and to whom Saunders or Ginandes were referred was perhaps understandable, and of minor impact, but statute of limitations dates are critical. I would assume that every American attorney marks these dates in red on their calendars. Not Arnold Phillips. Once our complaint had been filed, Phillips seemed to lose track of what it was about. The causes of action were: Excessive Use of Force; False Imprisonment; Unlawful Seizure; Initiation and Pursuit of Prosecution Without Probable Cause; Supervisory Liability of the City and County, HPD, the Police Chief, and John and Jane Does; Assault and Battery; Malicious Prosecution; and Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights. Phillips then went on a two year quest for medical proof of permanent injury. When it started to look like that proof would not be forthcoming (it had never looked likely to me), Phillips decided to amend the complaint to include False Arrest; Conspiracy; and Assault and Battery. Didn't he keep records of his own actions? He apparently didn't read the copies I sent him of the Journal of the American Medical Association articles that featured brain injuries, as he seemed to think that brains are like trees, with interior rings that record a history of what the individual has been through. None of the neurologists that I talked to claimed that they could read histories of individual brain traumas unless interior bleeding was involved, and the September 1999 issue of JAMA didn't imply that either. The worst of Phillips' performance was his repeated failure to handle witness Lauer competently, starting with his allowing Lauer to leave Hawaii before Phillips got a statement from him, and extending through his refusing to send me a copy of Lauer's deposition. When Phillips finally took Lauer’s deposition, he wrote that Lauer "would make a good witness." Then in several letters he stated that the City thought that the deposition would help them. I repeatedly asked for a copy of the deposition, and was ignored every time. Once Lauer got to Hawaii - at my expense and for the express purpose of testifying in court - he disappeared again (allegedly). This was the major factor in my agreeing to accept a settlement. Perhaps Lauer was kidnapped, or threatened into disappearing, but that should not have kept Phillips from sharing that deposition with me. Did he really fly to Florida twice and get a deposition? Did Lauer really return to Hawaii on my behalf ??? If there is documentation that Phillips did anything beyond take depositions of Lopes, Aina, and Akagi, request copies of my trial and deposition, and file the original complaint, I never got any of it. Phillips claimed that research was done on harassment cases - by a new lawyer from Minnesota; he claimed that Lauer had been located in South Carolina by a private investigator, and that he (Phillips) made two trips to Florida and took a deposition; and he wrote in February 2001 that "the expense (sic) are all tracked and entered as they are incurred. I will update and send you a copy." When everything had been signed, sealed, and delivered, he claimed that all of the records had been shipped to me in banker boxes as fourth class mail. Of course those boxes never arrived, and I question whether they were ever sent. I sent Arnold Phillips thousands of dollars without ever getting a statement, receipt, or proof of any kind that he spent the money as he claimed it was spent, or that items like copies of depositions cost what he said they cost. Beyond the fact that he led me into a legal corner where I was forced to agree to a settlement in which I lost $10,000, he provided no verifiable accounting. From the perspective of him being my employee - I paid him for his services - his performance was beyond abysmal. I wonder - if Consumer Reports did an analysis of American attorneys, would Mr. Phillips turn out to be an average one? Does the Hawaii Bar Association monitor their members at all? (Remember, when I first called them and asked if their recommendation of Phillips was based on his win / loss record, the receptionist said that they didn't keep track of such things)? Why did the Hawaii Bar Association recommend him? Are they still doing so? Civil Rights Division of the FBI After years of frustration with Phillips' and the Civil Court's seeming obsession with proving money damages, I finally came across information which explained that an individual could complain directly to the U.S. Department of Justice about violations of federal laws. I had thought from the beginning that we had to win in Civil Court in order to have our case referred to the Criminal Court. I wrote to the Civil Rights Division in Honolulu, and was contacted on the phone by FBI agent Hal Marshall. He assured me that Civil and Criminal proceedings were entirely independent of each other, and that I could file with the Civil Rights Division whenever I was ready, provided that the statute of limitations had not run out. I sent them the pertinent information (including the names and phone numbers of my witnesses...!) and after a few weeks was directed to an FBI office in Colorado, where an interview was set up. The agent who took my statement had a thick stack of papers on his desk when I arrived. There was an enlarged copy of my driver's license photo on the top, the implication being that the rest was about me as well. I was reminded of the realm of documents that Honolulu's city attorney had given to Mr. Phillips, how half of it ad been police policies and procedures, and how page after page had gone on about me reporting lost cell phones and broken windshields. For all I knew, that was all that was under my picture, or it might have been just a stack of blank paper, placed there to intimidate me. (And by the way, if you don't like your driver's license picture as it is, wait till you see it blown up to 8 1/2 by 11 inches!) The interview took about two hours, and was similar to my deposition with the City, and their interrogatories. In other words, we spent long minutes going over my personal history, and perhaps 1/4 of the time going over the police assault. The agent - Mr. Christiansen - was quite thorough as well as being pleasant and polite, but so had been Mr. Cluney, Mr. Mrkva, and Mr. Matsubara.The information was of course the same as before - nothing had changed - although I did ask him if he thought I was spending too much money on a contract that was a contingency agreement. On November 1, 2001, the Chief of the Civil Rights Division wrote to me: After carefully considering the information obtained by the FBI as a result of its investigation, we concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal rights statutes. Accordingly, we have closed our investigation and based on current information, do not plan to take any further action." This seemed about par for the U.S. watchdog organizations, and I wasn't surprised, even though I thought that most of the civil suit had to do with federal laws. How could they fail to see that Lopes, etc. had to be conspiring and committing perjury if I had not pushed one of them, and there was testimony to that effect? And that conspiracy and perjury set up the other causes of action? As this was less than two months after 9-11-01, I thought that the FBI could have been side-tracked by the New York attacks. On the other hand, my interview had been months earlier, way before 9-11. I wouldn't be mentioning any of this, except that I had a telephone conversation with Wendy a few months after receiving the letter. I apologized for complicating her life, especially if she had been tracked down and questioned by the FBI - something she had been dreading. She didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about. The FBI hadn't talked to her at all. Well, then. No wonder the evidence wasn't sufficient to establish a prosecutable violation. Did the FBI talk to Lauer, or review the criminal trial testimony? Did they talk to anybody besides me at all? Not likely. They just went along with the Police Commission report. With defenders like this, who needs enemies? Claimer / Disclaimer I am the sole person responsible for this report. Very few people have even heard about my "project," and those who have any idea about what I'm writing have discouraged me, saying that my most likely reward will be to get shot in the back. As I have related, I questioned Mr. Phillips at length about the implications of settling with the City. I was concerned about giving up my rights of free speech regarding writing or speaking publicly about the incident and its aftermath. He assured me that I could not give up those rights, even if I wanted to. In no way do I intend to go back on or violate the terms of the settlement. In writing Polawa I am reporting history, and petitioning what remains of the government “of the people,” and beyond that make no claims of any kind against the defendants, particularly with regard to our settlement of the civil lawsuit. As I have said, I actually lost money by taking the settlement. My expenses were over $17,000, the settlement was for $11,000, and Mr. Phillips’ contingency fee came to just under $$4,000. The reasons I accepted the settlement were: Lauer had disappeared; Phillips said that signing the release would not affect my first amendment rights; and my growing perception that even if I won the civil suit, the officers would not be brought to justice at all. Hawaii taxpayers would foot the bill. And wasn't that the case? Did Lopes, Aina, Wingo, or Akagi contribute even one cent of that $11,000? With all due respect to the sincerity of its personnel and employees, civil court is worthless as a means of preventing criminal behavior in HPD. Legalese, May 17, 2002: "KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS: "That the undersigned, Alfred Arney (hereinafter 'Releasor') ... does hereby release and forever acquit and discharge the said Releasees, their administrators, successors, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, departments, divisions, employees, representatives, subrogees, assigns, and all persons, entities, or parties being sued by, through, or on behalf of Releasor, from and on account of all claims, controversies, actions, causes of action, liabilities and liability, damages or expenses of any kind or nature, whether known or unknown, whether at law or equity, which may now exist or which may in any manner arise or grow out of any act, omission, event, or circumstances alleged in or related to Releasor's allegations of injuries occurring on or about September 26, 1006 ... as further set forth in the First Amended Complaint filed in the First Circuit Court of Hawaii designated as Alfred Arney vs. Wallace, et al, Civil No. 98-00786 ACK/BMK." Whatever that means, I gave my word to abide by it when I signed it, and do not intend to go against my word. Polawa: Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi is simply a report. It includes my experiences, communications, observations, interpretations, opinions, and questions. Well, it is also a petition to my government to address some blatant injustices. The only category that this report might violate is "controversies," which I think has been historically superseded. In the trial of Rick Reed vs. Larry Mehau, regarding an alleged "Godfather" of organized crime in Hawaii, US Federal agents testified that they had determined that the head of organized crime in The Islands was in the Honolulu Police Department. That statement created no controversy whatsoever, and I submit that if that situation generated no controversy, the fact that Lopes, Aina, Wingo, and Akagi might assault me as they did, is just everyday behavior for these officers and many of their peers. Many of my peers seem surprised that I consider this an issue worth pursuing... Anyhow ... The Releasees may consider themselves forever released, acquitted, discharged, and cursed. Be gone, you #%@&! Releasees, get thee hence! Fly away forever, and may your evil shadows never darken my life again! Traumatic Brain Injury* Just as I experienced the Hawaii court system as a layman and not an expert, I experienced the effects of being knocked unconscious personally, not as a detached observer or a student of the subject. What happened to me was devastating, and having to go through the process of recovery twice intensifies my feeling that this is not a matter to be taken lightly. Police in particular should not be afforded rationalized excuses for inflicting brain damage on citizens, even if the citizens might clearly be criminals. Cracking someone on the head with a baton should be way down the list of officers' options, and wanton assaults such as I experienced should be honestly investigated and the perpetrators severely disciplined. Public perception of individuals who have been injured by blows to the head seems to be learned by watching cartoons or sitcoms on TV, in which the victims behave in funny and eccentric ways, eliciting laughs from the audience. As often as not they eventually get another blow to the head that sets them straight - back to the way they were originally. The characters then live happily ever after. This is fiction at its worst. In the course of my original workmen's compensation claim, and then the lawsuit against my assailants, I went over volumes of reports, and kept an eye out for anything about the subject. There was nothing to indicate that TBI is a laughing matter, or should be a form of amusement granted to police officers. From the Oxford Companion to the Mind, 1987: "Concussion can be defined as a clinical syndrome characterized by immediate and transient impairment of mental functions such as alteration of consciousness, and disturbance of vision or equilibrium, due to mechanical forces. Such results follow all but the mildest blows to the head. In the majority of instances loss of consciousness is of short duration, but severe injuries result in periods of unconsciousness varying from hours to weeks or even months. The greater the duration of unconsciousness and the subsequent post-traumatic amnesia, the greater will be the period of post-concussional disability. Consequently it is important to record the duration of loss of memory following head injuries, not only as an index of severity but also as a guide to recovery." From a TBI feature in the Honolulu Advertiser, September 14, 1997: "A blow to the head can cause the brain to jerk, twist, or bump the skull. There is about 1/4 inch of space between the brain and the skull. "This movement will stretch or even snap axons, the tiny wires that transmit brain messages. Stretching will also break down the myelin sheath, slowing or stopping the transmission of nerve impulses. "When the brain's messages are interrupted, the effects can include headaches, nausea, memory loss, inability to concentrate, lethargy, and sensitivity to light and sound. "Doctors believe the key damage from a concussion occurs in neurons, which transmit impulses to and from the brain. A break in those transmissions can prohibit the brain from talking to itself and the rest of the body." The Advertiser, quoting the Cincinnati Enquirer, in the same feature: "'There are probably millions and millions of concussions every year, and most people don't ever seek medical attention,' says Dr. William Rosenburg, of the University of Cincinnati Medical Center and Department of Neurosurgery.’All of these fall under the category of a mild head injury.' "The good news is that most concussions resolve on their own, although doctors now find that it may be a matter of months or years before brain function returns completely to normal. "A decade ago, recovery was thought to happen in days or weeks. Athletes who suffered concussions were sent fairly quickly back into the fray. "But now, doctors have found that long term effects can linger, including dizziness, nausea, vomiting, confusion, memory difficulties, fuzzy thinking, irritability, unsteadiness and headache. "'Only when concussions are upgraded and classified as head injuries do people tend to be hospitalized and undergo brain scans, electrical monitoring and other tests that alert doctors to what's going on inside the brain,' Rosenberg said." From the Journal of the American Medical Association, September 8, 1999: "The term Traumatic Brain Injury was introduced into federal law by the Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996. It is quite possible that many physician-readers of THE JOURNAL are being introduced to the term TBI as a medical diagnosis for the first time, since most US medical schools probably have not included lectures on this topic or used this term in their required courses. In fact, it may come as a surprise to some physicians that 1 million new cases of TBI occur in the United States each year, with more than 50,000 deaths and 70,000 to 90,000 people developing long-term disability, as reported by Thurman and Guerrero. These data indicate that the incidence of TBI exceeds the annual incidence rates of the more well- established neurological diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease and Alzheimer disease combined. And yet only recently has the attention of the medical community been drawn to TBI, which Goldstein referred to as a 'silent epidemic' nearly a decade ago." .... "The Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996 also called for a ' national consensus conference on managing traumatic brain injury and related rehabilitation concerns.' This issue of THE JOURNAL carries the consensus statement of the 1998 conference hosted by the National Institutes of Health. A panel of experts was convened to develop the consensus statement following months of reviewing the literature and hearing testimony from investigators addressing specific questions regarding TBI as well as testimony from members of the audience attending the public session. Among the panel's conclusions were that TBI is a major health problem; mild TBI is significantly underdiagnosed and often neglected by the medical community; rehabilitation services are required to optimize outcome from TBI; and family members, significant others, and persons with TBI should be integrated into the rehabilitation process with funding adequate to meet their acute and long-term needs." (Bold type: A.A., 2006) I've included this section on TBI partly in answer to the City attorney, Mr. Matsubara, and his persistent questions as to why I didn't seek treatment sooner than I did after my injury in 1989. As I've said earlier, I was out of touch with myself and pretty much everything else for months after than first concussion, and in denial that I had experienced a serious injury. Many individuals - including me - have a tendency to want to bounce right back up after any accident, and not go "crying to Mommy" for every little scrape. Ninety nine percent of the cuts and bruises that I've sustained in my life have healed themselves within a week or so, and if something persists longer I will get it treated. One can see this same attitude watching sports on TV, when athletes rarely leave the field willingly after being injured, especially after suffering concussions. Football quarterbacks jump up with foolish grins, ready for action, and have to be led off the field. Boxing matches are stopped before the losers are beaten unconscious, to their dismay and despite their protests. Of course, these are million dollar athletes, highly visible to the public, and they receive immediate and thorough medical care. The situation is far different when one is beaten in a dark corner and shows up days later without verification or insurance, or is cross-examined by a hostile lawyer as to why the victim didn't behave intelligently. The other reason I include this subject here is to make it known, as much as possible, to the public in general, and to legislators in particular. If anyone should see or know that a person has experienced a serious blow to the head, don't leave it up to them to go straight to the hospital, but assist them if you can, and insist if you have to. As for legislators and hospital administrators, I ask that as you set up laws and procedures you take into account that victims of TBI need support, not confrontation. As much as I resented them, I believe that the attorneys I have mentioned in this account were doing their duties as those duties have been laid out by the law. Especially in Civil Court, the plaintiff is expected to show proof of damages, and a corresponding financial loss. In my case, I had sacrificed years being my own patron as an artist, and before I arrived at a point of financial success (as is true for many artists) I had my creative instrument - my mind - severely compromised. My inability to continue working towards music and writing goals had no documented proof of financial loss. An interesting comparison comes to mind, though ... if I had claimed that I'd totally lost my sex drive as a result of the police beating (I didn't), would Mr. Matsubara have been so insistent on my proving financial loss? Questions As a minor political mystery, the main question I put forth in POLAWA will no doubt go unsolved: why did the City of Honolulu reverse its stance and decide to offer me a settlement? I can only do so much to put this in the public realm, and there are many more uplifting things that I can do with my life. The public has to deal with far greater atrocities on a daily basis, and can spend only so much energy speculating on the depth of corruption my circumstances might reveal. After all of the hours and days that I've put into this, though, that's the one question that itches at me the most. Why did they change? The City attorney apparently thought that my strongest witness backed up the City's case, at least that's what Mr. Phillips related to me. Did Lauer's deposition actually support me enough to make the City afraid of losing, and then some backroom deal was struck with Phillips? Phillips couldn't make much of a living taking more than four years per case in order to squeeze out a paltry $4,000 in contingency fees ... The second set of documents that the City attorney gave me had a much clearer copy of my mug photo, and facial cuts can be seen, as well as swollen areas on my cheeks. Did Mr. Matsubara finally look at the original photos, and realize that there indeed was evidence that I'd been beaten before the officers brought me to the station? Did the City find out that Wendy had in fact been approached by someone from HPD and threatened into signing an agreement to not testify? Or just threatened about her or her family's safety? Did they find out that Lauer was threatened? Did one the officers finally break down and tell the truth to the City attorney? Were the Honolulu Police Commission and Arnold Phillips compromised from the beginning, and did I waste my time, energy, and money on a foregone disaster? According to friends in Honolulu at that time, local news sources were reporting that the City had used up the money that had been allocated for police misconduct settlements and jury awards. Why O why, then, did the City Council approve a settlement with me, especially if their attorney thought that they had a winning case? "A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society." Thomas Jefferson "The appearance of the law must be upheld, especially when it is being broken." Boss Tweed, in 'Gangs of New York.'