MARK RECKTENWALD ADVANCES COVERT ACTION DISCIPLINARY EXCEPTION EXCUSING LAWYERS FOR FRAUD AND CRIMES IN FAVOR OF A ‘JUDICIAL RACKET’
DISREGARDING CITIZENS’ health, safety, and Hawaii’s Sunshine Act, the Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald has proposed a “no hearing” ethics rule change that could damage citizens, hamper law enforcement, and help crime syndicates by protecting lawyers who lie, cheat, steal, even kill people during ill-defined ‘covert activity.’ The proposed Rule 8.4(c) change to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) would make Hawaii the only state in America to exempt lying lawyers who claim to “participate in” covert law enforcement ‘investigations.’
The proposed rule change would further insulate the judicial branch of government from legislative oversight and public scrutiny. The amendment would exceed judicial authority and legislative license. And the risks from this would far outweigh presumed benefits, experts report. More than helping law enforcers, the change would permit fraudulent concealment of crime syndicates drugging and damaging citizens by way of their malpracticing lawyers. More than helping local police or federal agents, the change could devastate the institution of law.
Without press or reasonable public notice, on June 20, 2019, Mark Recktenwald’s proposal suddenly appeared on the Judiciary’s website as shown here by screenshots. The unprecedented action breaks federal policy of notifying legislators about pending or ongoing covert actions.
There was no notice to Hawaii lawmakers responsible for ethics rules and laws under the 1978 CODE OF ETHICS. In that Code legislators made clear that they were not granting exclusive authority to Supreme Court justices to draft new ethics rules exempting malpracticing lawyers. Lawmakers only gave Supreme Court justices their confidence to direct the judicial branch by following their own Cannons of ethics presumed adequate by lawmakers.
Among the problems identified by Rock the Boat Hawaii co-host and consumer advocate, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, the proposal for “EXEMPTING COVERT GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS permits attorneys to lie and break rules and laws “if certain requirements are met.” Yet those “requirements” are not identified.
“Nor does the amendment define ‘investigations,’” Dr. Horowitz explained. “That secret activity could be broad or limited, targeting criminals or honest people.”
Nor does the amendment even define “covert actions” according to state or federal laws.
“The trick is in the wording: ‘Participate in’ lawful activity involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.’ Does that mean the corrupt Bar member needs to work out in a gym to meet Mr. Recktenwald’s approval?” Dr. Horowitz chided.
“The change is ill-defined and judgment is totally subjective,” said Sherri Kane, an investigative journalist, victim, witness, whistleblower, and frequent contributor to JudicialCorruptionNews.com. “Changing this malpractice rule favors the ‘Judicial Racket’ most. The outlaws in charge are protecting themselves against a growing wave of public corruption exposures.”
A great example making national news at the time of this writing is Bruce Ohr, head of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division. Attorney Ohr managed teams investigating and prosecuting crime syndicates. Ohr’s ‘lawful participation’ in the Fusion GPS scandal prompted President Trump to say, “For him to be in the Justice Department and doing what he did, is a disgrace.”
Recktenwald’s proposed rule change would likewise disgrace the institution of law enforcement.
The “totally subjective” nature of the Hawaii rule change troubles the nation’s leading experts analyzing the risks. There are no states that have gone this far in harboring malpracticing lawyers evidences legal scholar Barry R. Temkin in “Deception in Undercover Investigations: Conduct-Based vs. Status-Based Ethical Analysis.”
“In Colorado,” Temkin explained, “the state supreme court refused to carve out a law enforcement exception to the honesty provision of the state ethics code. Two other jurisdictions have sanctioned law enforcement officers who [even] coached witnesses to lie under oath.”
To grasp the full extent of Judge Recktenwald’s alleged ‘con’—how subjective and potentially criminal the amendment makes Supreme Court officials—read the series of articles vetting Mark Recktenwald’s subordinate appointee, Bradley R. Tamm, the Executive Director of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
“The ODC is the state’s only protection against malpracticing lawyers,” Kane explained with personal knowledge, having been victimized by Recktenwald and Tamm. “Tamm was suspended in California for embezzling thousands of dollars from his clients, failing to make restitution as he had agree, abusing drugs and alcohol. He admitted being mentally ill and highly challenged during recover. Nonetheless, he was appointed by Recktenwald to head the ODC.”
During Tamm’s Bar Association presentation last Spring, he explained that his ODC receives more than 700 complaints against lawyers annually. Only about 150 are investigated. Only 3 or 4 of those are prosecuted. That leaves 700 malpracticing lawyers able to continue damaging citizens.
Meanwhile, according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser, there’s no police investigators enforcing white collar crime laws; and most of these crimes are committed by lawyers stealing people’s properties by false filings with the state and courts, overlooked by willfully-blind ODC officials and complicit judges.
“Mr. Recktenwald needs to disqualify himself from this entire matter,” Dr. Horowitz says, “because he already recused himself from the cases that appear to have prompted this unprecedented rule change.”
“We brought crimes involving his subordinate, Bradley Tamm, to Recktenwald’s attention in December, 2018,” Kane added. “Mr. Recktenwald turned our urging for an investigation of Tamm into a Writ of Mandamus. Then Recktenwald disqualified himself so his subordinates could hamper and dismiss the action without addressing Tamm’s actions or incriminating Recktenwald for covering-up for Tamm.”
Tamm, according to Recktenwald’s Writ of Mandamus, was accused of evidence tampering, witness tampering, and hampering the ODC’s investigation of Gary Victor Dubin—iHeart Radio’s foreclosure defense expert who advertises on FOX News.
“We hired Dubin to stop the illegal foreclosure of our home brought by the infamous lawyer and drug trafficking kingpin, Paul J. Sulla, Jr. of Hilo. Sulla has several links to the CIA, Russian cocaine convicts, marihuana traffickers, and is America’s leading supplier of the new designer LSD called ‘ayahusaca.’ Recktenwald and Tamm hampered all three investigations, including our complaints against Sulla, Tamm and Dubin requested by honest ODC officials,” Dr. Horowitz said.
As reported by Malia Zimmerman for the Hawaii Reporter, and federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway, Dubin so poorly defended Arciero that she is now serving a lengthy jail term for drug trafficking through her escort service. Her list of kinky sex clients included “some of Hawaii’s most prominent judges”—a fact implicating Judge Recktenwald and the Supreme Court Judge’s dismissal of the ODC’s disbarment case against Dubin. The deal appears to have been struck in a ‘cover action’ campaign against drug trafficking.
Legislators and citizens share a ‘public duty’ to protect society against damage to people and properties caused by organized crime and public corruption. The damage to people’s health and safety from the severe distress of failed law enforcement and corrupted courts is everyone’s problem. For this reason, readers are urged to file opposition to Judge Recktenwald’s proposed rule change by September 20, 2019, including opposition to the closed-door meeting planned to pass the unprecedented malpractice permit.
FULL TEXT FEATURED ARTICLE
MARK RECKTENWALD ADVANCES COVERT ACTION DISCIPLINARY EXCEPTION EXCUSING LAWYERS FOR FRAUD AND CRIMES IN FAVOR OF A ‘JUDICIAL RACKET’
HONOLULU, HI (8-3-19)—Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald has proposed an ethics rule change that would protect lawyers who lie, cheat, steal, even kill people during ill-defined ‘covert actions’ and secret ‘investigations’ exceeding his authority and legislative license. Critics contend the Rule 8.4(c) change to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) will further insulate the Judicial Branch of government from legislative and public scrutiny benefiting mainly crime syndicates more than intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
Without giving reasonable public notice, Mark Recktenwald has proposed a closed-door determination after presumably examining comments provided by ill-informed citizens and officials. He invited written opposition, but not public discussion in an open hearing, as to whether lawyers should not be disciplined or disbarred for lying, cheating, stealing and more. They are exempt so long as they claim they are on a secret mission for some unverified black-op agency. Examples include investigations by the CIA or other presumed law-enforcement groups.
Judge Recktenwald’s proposed change to the HRPC Rule 8.4(c) was issued on June 19, 2019 without any press coverage. No press release accompanied a copy of the proposed amendment that suddenly appeared on the Judiciary’s website. It appears here by screenshots.
Contrary to the federal precedent of notifying legislators about pending or ongoing covert actions, (1) there was no notice provided Hawaii lawmakers on this proposed rule change.
That is worse than odd, because the legislative branch of government created the judicial branch. When matters of ethics rules were determined by the Hawaii Constitutional Convention creating the 1978 CODE OF ETHICS, legislators did not grant exclusive authority to Supreme Court justices to draft new ethics rules. Lawmakers only gave Supreme Court justices their confidence to direct the judicial branch by following their own Cannons of ethics presumed adequate by the legislature.
Bar Association members who neglected to click on a link in their July 2019 Newsletter also received no published notice from Mark Recktenwald about the proposed Rule 8.4(c) change. So lawyers, and their clients impacted, generally remained clueless.
In essence, the proposed rule change appears to be a ‘covert action.’ Titled “EXEMPTING COVERT GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS, Recktenwald ‘clarified’ “that attorneys, supervising or participating in lawful, covert, government investigations, are not in violation of the prohibition against deceitful or dishonest conduct, if certain requirements are met.”
Yet those “requirements” are not cited.
Nor does the amendment define the term ‘investigations.’ That definition may be broad or limited.
Nor does the amendment even define “covert actions.” Shall we presume here the federal definition of a “covert action,” or some Hawaii definition? (2)
All of this intelligence is withheld or purposely neglected.
The Importance of Rule 8.4(c), and Serious Questions of Civil Rights and Lawless Government Raised by Mark Recktenwald’s Proposed Change
The Journal of Contemporary European Research in 2013 discussed problems of “Blurring the Line between Law Enforcement and Intelligence: Sharpening the Gaze of Surveillance?” The author concluded, “Secret or sensitive information should be used in a way that balances the need for intelligence gathering with the right of the defense to examine incriminating evidence.”
A helpful review of this issue was published in 2008 in the Seattle University Law Review by author Barry R. Temkin. This adjunct professor at New York Law School and Chair of the New York County Lawyers Association Professional Ethics Committee’s article was titled, “Deception in Undercover Investigations: Conduct-Based vs. Status-Based Ethical Analysis.” Temkin objected to the “inherently subjective and value-laden” matter at hand. He opposed the current Reality of covert action law that justifies deception against traditional prohibitions against lying and worse.
Temkin recommended that ethics rules should focus on the conduct of the attorney, rather than on the subject matter of the specific case or on the status of the attorney’s client.
But what if the troubling case presented here considers the “conduct of the attorney” being that of the Executive Director of the Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in charge of disciplining lawyers for ethics violations? That is, the lawyer subject to this inquiry is Bradley R. Tamm, Mark Recktenwald’s subordinate appointee.
What if Tamm purposely concealed during a covert action or ODC investigation substantial evidence of organized crime in which he played a major role?
What if the secret investigators were Tamm’s subordinate lawyers and disciplinarians who Tamm hindered to hide not only the “subject matter of the specific case,” but also Tamm’s complicity in well-evidenced criminal activity, in order to protect himself and his clients–the State and Federal governments?
Furthermore, what if Tamm’s fellow government agents, including Mark Recktenwald, aided-and-abetted by willful blindness and direct complicity the series of alleged white collar crimes?
What if substantial evidence that Tamm concealed vetted a ‘Judicial Racket’–a criminal enterprise engaged with Tamm in concealing illegal drug trafficking, money laundering, property theft, even a set of disregarded murders?
Would it still be ethical and legally-proper to alter HRPC Rule 8.4(c), that would, in effect, help to exempt, even conceal, Tamm’s violations of HRS §710-1070 anti-bribery law, HRS §710-1072 tampering with a witness law, and HRS §710-1076 tampering with physical evidence law?
And what if Mark Recktenwald made himself liable for the conduct of his subordinate Tamm under HRS §702-222 Liability for conduct of another; complicity prohibition law?
In fact, the preponderance of evidence in the case detailed below proves each of these alleged crimes.
Mr. Recktenwald is alleged to have violated the aforementioned complicity prohibition by advancing the rule change within six months of receiving written notice of Tamm having been accused of violating the three aforementioned § 710 prohibitions.
Mark Recktenwald’s Proposed Rule 8.4(c) Protects Rogue Lawyers and Sharply Contrasts with Other States’ Amendments
In Temkin’s review, he did not have such a case as this to consider. Although Temkin’s cases justified helpful recommendations, none of them dealt with the main issues Mark Recktenwald raised here concerning the series of cases before the Supreme Court of Hawaii, its Intermediate Court of Appeals, and the Third Circuit Big Island “Drug Court,” most proximal to Recktenwald’s proposed Rule 8.4(c) change.
The cases concerned here involve the conduct of Mr. Recktenwald’s subordinate, Mr. Tamm, and Hilo attorney Paul J. Sulla, Jr, who is known to be trafficking large volumes of an illegal Class I narcotic to the mainland with the government’s willful-blindness and multiple links to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). These facts best explain Sulla’s uncanny immunity from prosecution, his adversaries persecution and malicious prosecution in Hawaii courts, and obvious protection provided Sulla along with Sulla’s complicit lawyers including Tamm, Gary Victor Dubin, and Stephen D. Whittaker as explained below.
Further evidence of official malfeasance by Mark Recktenwald in advancing this Rule 8.4 change comes from the language and commentary he used in his proposal. It differs substantially from the few other states that published related amendments. As written by the Colorado Supreme Court in amending their Rule 8.4(c) ethics standard, their wise justices refrained from proposing or enacting language as Mr. Recktenwald has proposed.
The above screenshot shows Mark Recktenwald proposed to add the following crime-vindicating exception to the original Rule 8.4(c) that forbid lawyers to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Recktenwald added the exception, “that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.” [Emphasis added.]
In other words, lawyers who are fit to practice law may “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” by claiming they work for the government in secret investigations justifying their misconduct.
Recktenwald also added the clarifying comment that states in relevant part: “It is not professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . participate in lawful covert activity in the investigation of violations of
civil or criminal law or constitutional rights or in lawful intelligence gathering
activity, provided the lawyer’s conduct is otherwise in compliance with these Rules.”
In other words, according to the change, it would not reflect adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law, and it would not be cause for discipline or disbarment, if a lawyer engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation during or involving the lawyers participation in “lawful covert activity” that could include everything from assassinating enemies of state to armed insurgence into religious properties to investigate allegations of unregistered firearms as occurred in the Waco tragedy.
In Colorado, the 8.4 revisionists were not so unwise as to provide such a broad-sweeping exception and commentary as Mark Recktenwald proposed. Colorado’s more restrained amendment was adopted without any comment whatsoever. Colorado spent three years, from 2017 to 2019, researching to establish a legal basis for their amendment that, in fact, reinforced ethical rules precluding malpractices established to protect society and the integrity of the judiciary.
Unlike Mr. Recktenwald’s obtuse endangerment, Colorado drew guidance for conservatism from Oregon, Iowa, and other states that adopted variants of ABA Model Rule 8.4(c). “It is important to keep in mind that the express language of such variants and their comments circumscribe the ethical boundaries of a lawyer’s involvement in investigative activities in those jurisdictions,” Colorado justices warned. “Lawyers practicing in Colorado who are consulted regarding investigative activities must analyze each situation on a case-by-case basis, and exercise their own sound professional judgment, informed by legal research.”
Most importantly, in Colorado, as in most states where Rule 8.4(c) has been revised, attorneys are not permitted to participate directly in committing fraud and other misconduct, but only through others–that is, bonafide law enforcers gathering intelligence under an attorney’s advisement.
Background on the Concealed Crimes of Paul Sulla and Bradley Tamm
Prejudicing litigants in these cases, Tamm is alleged to have acted to illegally hamper the investigations of Hilo attorney Paul J. Sulla, Jr. and Honolulu lawyer Gary Victor Dubin by ODC investigators. Dubin had taken $6,000 from two Sulla victims, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz and his partner, Sherri Kane, to stop Sulla’s illegal non-judicial foreclosure on the couple’s home.
ODC lawyers had solicited an ethics complaint against Sulla from Kane to gathered evidence the ODC sought in its investigation to disbar lawyer Gary Victor Dubin.
The ODC’s disbarment proceeding against Dubin had been initially DENIED by Mark Recktenwald, Kane’s solicited complaint was subsequently DISMISSED without just cause or inquiry reasonable by Tamm, hampering the ODC’s investigation of both Dubin and Sulla.
Both actions by the Supreme Court officials gave the appearance of sheltering Dubin.
Raising the appearance of impropriety, Dubin had unsuccessfully represented the “Portlock Madam,” Malia Arciero, who is now serving a lengthy jail term for drug trafficking through her escort service. As reported by Malia Zimmerman for the Hawaii Reporter, Arciero’s list of kinky sex clients included “some of Hawaii’s most prominent judges, politicians and entertainers.” Judges and law enforcers were recorded in Arciero’s “black book” of clients. A recent decision by federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway slammed Dubin who indisputably took Arciero for a lot of money. Arciero’s appeal based on Dubin’s “ineffective assistance of counsel” was DENIED not because Dubin provided effective assistance, but to the contrary. Dubin’s e-mails appear to have provoked a willing Arciero to reject a plea bargain and move to trail in a case heavily disfavoring victory.
These facts appear to indict Dubin’s protectors, Recktenwald and Tamm. These facts also raise an appearance of impropriety against Judge Recktenwald who may have been Arciero’s client. There is probable cause to consider if Dubin’s ineffective assistance was intended to put Arciero away for the long term to protect “some of Hawaii’s most prominent judges” as reported by Zimmerman, among which was Recktenwald and/or the Chief Justices subordinates.
Said appearance of impropriety is compounded by two counts of evidence tampering under Hawaii law HRS §710-1076 sections a and b. Again, the Chief Justice had denied without prejudice the ODC’s disbarment action against Dubin. This is what prompted the ODC investigators to solicit Kane to provide supplemental evidence against Dubin by-way-of Kane’s supplemental complaint against Sulla. This supplemental evidence was then DISMISSED without reasonable inquiry by Tamm, satisfying the elements of evidence tampering under Hawaii law HRS §710-1076 sections a and b.
This neglected “balance” between “sensitive information” provided for discovery during the ODC’s intelligence gathering activities and the right of litigants to have Supreme Court fact finders competently and judiciously perform their duties of examining the evidence before them, prejudiced the litigants and law enforcers in this case, including ODC investigators, as further detailed below.
Mark Recktenwald’s End-run Around
We link here to a copy of the original Complaint known to have prompted Mark Recktenwald’s earlier recusal. This was the Complaint that Mark Recktenwald converted into a Writ of Mandamus in SCOT -18-0000972. This recently dismissed proceeding acted as a stonewalling. The Recktenwald end-run-around diversion deprived the aforementioned complainants and litigants, Horowitz and Kane, of their due process, precluding justice, and blocking the careful examination of Bradley Tamm’s actions and their implications to the ODC’s secret investigation of Dubin and Sulla.
In other words, Mark Recktenwald acted to protect himself by recusal, and protect Tamm and Recktenwald’s entire Supreme Court administration, by circumventing the ethical questions raised by pending actions of attorneys Tamm, Sulla, and Dubin.
Consequently, the proposed rule change is most proximal to this action–SCOT -18-0000972–the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s Writ of Mandamus generated by Judge Recktenwald.
Judge Recktenwald’s administration slyly evaded addressing the issues brought to light here, alleged crimes tainting Mark Recktenwald’s administration. These matters including covert actions by agents, including Sulla, with ties to the CIA. These matters of substantial social interest and consequence must not be swept under the rug to avoid sensitive disclosures, and worse–the vetting of the apparent Judicial Racket.
Do Judicial Cannons Permit a ‘License to Kill?’
The way Mark Recktenwald’s proposal currently reads, a Bar member can ethically lie about killing someone, or stealing from citizens, during a claimed ‘investigation’ into whatever. The indemnified lawyer would have no ethical responsibility to tell the truth about any of it.
In effect, the proposal, if passed during a closed-door meeting attended by presumably Mark Recktenwald’s secret agents only, would grant lawyers a virtual ‘License to Kill’.
No administrative procedures or enforcement requirements are mentioned in Mark Recktenwald’s proposal. The Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) would simply close its eyes to malpracticing lawyers engaged in any crime or deception claimed to be committed during an ‘investigation’ under this suspicious and poorly defined rules change.
This vagueness raises a number of reasonable questions:
Aren’t lawyers considered “court officers”? Isn’t the Supreme Court of Hawaii a governmental agency? Aren’t courts governmental entities also. Don’t lawyers ‘investigate’ evidence in such forums? Don’t proceedings commonly include private (secret/covert) discussions at the bench or chambers? Don’t ethics rules require good faith and honesty during these proceedings? Didn’t the active 1978 CODE OF ETHICS passed by the legislature permit Justice Department officials to operate ONLY WHEN STRICT ETHICS LAWS DETAILED BY THE JUDICIAL CANNONS ARE FOLLOWED? (3)
This proposed rule change subverts the honor of the court and law enforcement.
Critics reasonably contend such a change could benefit organized crime, corrupted judges, and mischievous lawyers, more than covert law enforcers. (3)
Mark Recktenwald’s Proposal Gives the Appearance of a ‘Covert Action’
Supreme Court officials supervising this ‘License to Kill’ rule change, as well as any administration enforcing it, were concealed by Judge Recktenwald.
But key personnel certainly include Bradley R. Tamm–the current Executive Director of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
Recktenwald’s proposed rule change, exclusively published on the Hawaii State Judiciary website, did not say who or what agency would be overseeing the new procedures aside from Tamm. And Tamm’s record raises serious red flags.
Recktenwald’s and Clifford Nakea’s appointee was previously suspended by the California Bar Association (CBA) for embezzling thousands of dollars in clients’ money while claiming mental illness and addictions to drugs and alcohol. That fact, confirmed by clicking that CBA link, was secreted and dismissed by Recktenwald’s administration.
This ‘covert action’ alone, concealing Tamm’s unscrupulous past, hiding Tamm’s investigation and authorization by Judge Recktenwald and Chairman Nakea, gives the impression that Tamm’s appointment best served a Judicial Racket or criminal syndicate.
Putting mentally and professionally compromised Tamm in the position of executive leadership at the ODC, gate-keeping disciplinary proceedings controlling unethical lawyers, gives the appearance of a crime syndicate not legitimate government overseeing law enforcement.
The Judiciary’s website simply encourages citizens and officials to submit their opposition to such covert actions through the Judiciary Communications & Community Relations Office. Skeptics can mail their opinions to 417 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, or fax 539-4801. But contrary to the State’s Sunshine Act, and the ‘Open Meetings’ law HRS §92-3, Recktenwald’s and Tamm’s ‘final decision’ will be made illegally behind closed doors, according to Mark Recktenwald’s public notice.
“If you did not know to look for this proposed ethics rule change, you would never know about it,” one anonymous lawyer complained. “Nor would you know the deadline for public comment is Friday, September 20, 2019.”
Mark Recktenwald’s proposed ethics rule change has all the markings of a self-serving, syndicate protecting, subversion of citizens’s rights and legislative authority. This near ‘covert action,’ the facts surrounding it, the ‘preponderance of evidence’ characterizing it, raises probable cause to investigate Recktenwald’s association with Tamm, and common alleged criminal behavior in several cases detailed below, under a ‘presumption of guilt’ standard. “Where proof of elements of a crime cannot be shown or is difficult to show by direct evidence, ‘legislatures often provide for the inference of such elements of a crime based upon the existence of other proven facts.'”State v. Arakaki, 7 Haw. App. ___, 744 P.2d 783 (1987), quoting State v. Brighter, 61 Haw. 99, 103, 595 P.2d 1072, 1075 (1979).
Small Change Raises Big Questions of Public Safety and National Security
Recktenwald’s Rule 8.4(c) proposed amendment raises a number of important questions because it would help to conceal lawyers on secret missions for not only intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA or internal affairs, but also for crime syndicates.
The proposed change could protect all kinds of rogue operators. Malpracticing lawyers and corrupt judges working in the underworld might be spared ethics investigations. Tamm and other disciplinary officials might abuse this ‘loophole’ in favor of crime bosses inviting bribery and public corruption.
Bar members, including judges helping, concealing, neglecting, even harboring the secret agents would likewise be protected. Under “certain [unspecified] requirements,” the rule change could help shield all Bar members engaged in black-ops and the ‘black market’. This supplemental ‘license’ to malpractice affords lawyers a certain amount of immunity against prosecution for racketeering, while doing nothing to ensure society’s safety and judicial integrity.
The cases cited below even raise the question of U.S. National Security interests likewise threatened by Recktenwald’s proposed amendment that could help protect Hawaii’s drug syndicates damaging all Americans and the American economy, for instance. (4)
The amended ethics rule might also deter honest government investigators and law enforcers who may seek to rely on ODC investigations and prosecutions for evidence of ethical violations. Such is the case of the ODC v Gary Victor Dubin–the nation’s leading ‘foreclosure defense’ lawyer according to advertisements on Fox News. Mark Recktenwald and Bradley Tamm both acted to block honest ODC officials from their repeated efforts to disbar Dubin.
Racketeering enterprises profiting from drugs, sex crimes, and human trafficking would be potentially relieved much the same.
A simple affidavit by an attorney falsely claiming spy-agency authority could protect devil-doers endangering society.
People and Lawsuits Prompting Mark Recktenwald’s Proposed Rule Change
Besides threatening public safety, Mark Recktenwald’s proposed rule change would damage people engaged in lawsuits against lawyers who secretly serve in covert actions and commit torts and crimes ‘under color of law.’
Parties and current cases most proximal to the proposed rule change include Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, Sherri Kane, and their Judeo-Christian ministry, The Royal Bloodline of David (‘Royal’). For more than a decade, these litigants have been involved in cases defending their ‘stolen property‘ from a widely known drug-trafficking lawyer with multiple connections to the CIA and underworld–Paul J. Sulla, Jr. of Hilo, HI.
Since 2009, Horowitz, Kane, their ministry, and the couple’s businesses have been damaged not only by Sulla and Sulla’s corrupt influence upon the Third Circuit Court of Hawaii. Anti-Semitic White supremacists with ties to Sulla and the CIA previously cyber-stalked, libeled, and damaged the Jewish couple and their commercial activities.
‘Agent Sulla,’ the lead antagonist in this matter of alleged public corruption, is known to have stolen Horowitz and Kane’s property by forgery, fraud, and complicity in a conspiracy to deprive and damage Dr. Horowitz by tying him up in courts. Horowitz, as a Harvard-trained expert in public health and emerging diseases, is an outspoken opponent to drug industry interests and risky vaccinations. Sulla promotes drug use, and has influenced fellow court officers and judges to oppose and prejudice Horowitz.
These actions and damages from Sulla allied with Ott & Co. prompted Horowitz and Kane to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court administered by Chief Justice J. Michael Seabright. In that case (Horowitz and Kane v. Sulla and Ott, et. al.; CIV. NO. 15 00186 JMS-BMK), Sulla’s lead defense witness– Alma C. Ott–was identified as “America’s leading White supremacist and neo-Nazi ‘radical right’ anti-government agitator.”
Ott’s ‘handler’ was the CIA/FBI Los Angeles Division 5 Chief, now deceased, Ted Gunderson. Gunderson was heavily engaged in administering COINTELPRO propaganda campaigns to ‘neutralize’ political targets, including Black Panther Bobby Seal. At the same time Gunderson supported radical right racists in “Ott & Company.” Their combined covert actions also protected child sex trafficking networks as publicized today in the Jeffrey Epstein and PizzaGate scandals. Gunderson was the secret government’s ‘gatekeeper’ supposedly trusted to investigate cases of missing children on behalf of devastated parents.
Ott’s lieutenant, Michael Nuccitelli, was exposed for soliciting children to link to his “iPreditor” sex business. Ott’s web host, Alex McGowan Studer, was identified by the FBI as a pedophile advocate. Studer, a Hollywood audio editor, lived and worked on Garry Goddard’s property. Goddard is the infamous Hollywood exec sued for sexually assaulting young upcoming actors.
Nuccitelli’s group sold “Ejaculoid,” “Semen Volumizer”, and much more to anyone online. The New York licensed psychologist pitched “young children,” “tweens and teens,” to engage “Dr. Internet Safety”. Children K-5 were encouraged by Nuccitelli to consider the “Cyber Tyger vs. Troll Man struggle,” a ploy used to attract victims to his sex businesses.
These details are provided to consider the far-reaching implications of exempting corrupt lawyers who might easily commit torts and crimes while claiming to be administering covert actions and exempted ‘investigations.’ The proposed ethics rule change neglects such modern realities and widespread public corruption.
Continuing such considerations, if “guilt by association” is ever justified, and placing faith in covert government operations and agents is obviously risky; since “apples never fall far from their trees,” then Mark Recktenwald’s proposed rule change is contraindicated by more facts and reasonable presumptions.
Again, a ‘preponderance of facts’ produces a ‘presumption of guilt.’ By Sulla’s case example the preponderance of evidence in Horowitz and Kane v. Sulla and Ott et. al.. precludes the rule change in the interest of reasonable caution, justice and civility.
Sulla is shown in the photo above in court defending his son, Jasun, against charges of child pornography and soliciting sex with minors. A Hilo grand jury recently indicted Jasun, who is a licensed “family therapist.” He was indicted for committing online activities similar to Nuccitelli’s.
Sulla’s second son, Joseph (a.k.a.,” Jose'”), is also a Hawaii-licensed “family therapist.” He leads ceremonies that generated sexual complaints from participants who were under the influence of drugs at the time of their alleged abuse.
During sworn testimony in Sulla’s SLAPP lawsuit (Civ. No. 12-1-0417) filed to censor Horowitz and Kane who prevailed against Elizabeth Strance’s Court imposed gagging order illegally violating their press freedoms, certain material facts were made public. These included Sulla’s self-admitted (initially concealed) manufacturing and trafficking of the Class I narcotic hallucinogen, dimethyltryptamine (“DMT”; street named ‘ayahuasca’). Since then, this illegal drug trade has become a billion dollar exploding black market business in America and overseas. It is widely known to be risking consumers lives and mental health.
During sworn testimony in that “0417” case, Sulla son Joseph defended their family’s ayahuasca trade, much like Sulla did in federal case CV 15 00186 JMS-BMK in which Sulla misrepresented the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). (5)
During Joseph Sulla’s sworn testimony, the ‘therapist’ promoted the illegal use of their Class I narcotic hallucinogen. In related articles, Joseph repeatedly defended this as “community medicine,” albeit unlicensed prescriptions. This new ‘designer LSD’–also called ‘The God Molecule‘–the Sullas’ testimonies revealed was being manufactured by their crime family and ‘church’ members.
At their 67-acre “Ayahuasca Church” North of Hilo, the Sullas attract sometimes hundreds of “journeyers” to trip on DMT-spiked ‘tea’. Churchgoers manufacture large volumes of the illegal brew, consume some, then ship truckloads more to the mainland U.S, according to numerous affidavits and the Sullas’ leading chemist.
Paul Sulla’s son Joseph actually worked and published with the CIA’s leading MKULTRA ‘dream telepathy’ and ‘remote viewing’ researcher, Dr. Stanley Krippner. This most outspoken hallucinogenic drug proponent recommends LSD, DMT and psilocybin to secure the Future of Religions.
Krippner’s religious convictions evolved while working under secret military contracts in the CIA’s “Project Stargate” (See: CIA Files_Parapsychologist Dr. Stanley Krippner). Krippner subsequently allied with the Sullas and government agencies all favoring drug companies that are heavily invested in this burgeoning new market for psychedelic drugs. Their buyers are exploding in the military and beyond. Post traumatic stress sufferers and religious world drop-outs are solicited to consume the Sullas’ ‘tea’ for hallucinogenic ‘journeys,’ ‘mental health,’ and even addiction recoveries.
Reflect again on these facts when considering Mark Recktenwald’s proposed rule change. Sulla’s entire racketeering enterprise has been operating under the watchful eyes of top Hawaii law enforcers, the DEA, FBI, CIA, Mark Recktenwald, Bradley Tamm, and their subordinates too. Each of these agents and agencies are under duty to do the right thing, not conceal wrongdoing under the arbitrary, capricious or special claim of exception for exemption by ‘covert action investigation.’
The entire criminal operation risking and damaging youth and mentally challenged adults across America today may, with this rule change, be dismissed as acceptable. Victims would be dismissed as ‘collateral damage’ from lawyers acceptable malfeasance during covert drug ‘investigations.’ The CIA’s MKULTRA-like military program resurrected with DMT from Sulla’s church is reminiscent of the Jim Jones ‘experiment’ at the People’s Temple. To this day, it remains unsettled whether or not two lawyers involved in that investigation, said to have narrowly escaped their murder aside 909 of their clients slain in “paradise,” were agents or victims in the alleged CIA covert operation.
Accordingly, the rule change simply does not comport with the presumption of facts, the preponderance of evidence, and society’s best interest.(6)
Mark Recktenwald’s Rule Change Extends a Pattern and Practice of Public Corruption
In recent months federal prosecutors have convicted several high ranking Hawaii officials on public corruption charges, most notably the Kealohas.
Horowitz and Kane have been encouraging similar federal investigations, indictments, and convictions for Mark Recktenwald and his Supreme Court subordinates based on having aided-and-abetted by willful blindness or direct complicity Sulla, Sulla’s thievery, drug trafficking, money laundering, and racketeering enterprise.
In recently dismissed ODC cases, Mark Recktenwald’s appointee, Executive Director Bradly R. Tamm, is claimed by Horowitz and Kane to have committed multiple crimes with Sulla, extending a pattern and practice of public corruption in Hawaii involving the judiciary. (7)
Tamm and three ICA judges under Mark Recktenwald–Lisa M. Ginoza, Alexa D.M. Fujise, and Katherine G. Leonard–concealed, protected, and indemnified Sulla against Horowitz and Kane’s counterclaims in a quiet title action filed by Sulla wherein Horowitz and Kane were ejected from their property and made homeless. (Civ. No. 14-1-0304) (8)
Likewise, in the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s recent final disposition of the Writ of Mandamus ordered by Mark Recktenwald in SCOT-18-0000972, and denied in SCPW-19-0000035 on February 21, 2019, this Judicial Racket evaded the critical violation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction limted by legislators’ in the drafting of the 1978 CODE OF ETHICS. Supreme Court were not authorized to investigate or dispose of ethics violations allegedly committed by Supreme Court judges and their appointees. (3)
Federal prosecutors previously protected Sulla too. When U.S. Treasury Department officials sued Sulla’s client, Honolulu arms dealer Arthur Lee Ong, they sent three-out-of-four conspirators to jail. Sulla was the only one who ‘walked.’ Meanwhile, Sulla concocted the entire ‘religious money laundering scheme.’ The record shows Sulla ‘set up’ Ong and America’s leading tax evasion guru, Lamar Hardy, for their convictions. This compounds the aforementioned preponderance of evidence and presumption of guilt. There is probable cause to presume Sulla has been working all along as a secret agent granted the courts’ immunity as a rogue FBI or Treasury Dept. ‘informant,’ and now beneficiary of Mark Recktenwald’s alleged travesty.
Sulla is also believed to have played a major role in the arrest of Hilo marijuana minister Roger Christie.
And cocaine comes into the picture too. Sulla was directly involved in the conversion of a million dollar property that the County of Hawaii contracted to be made into affordable housing for the elderly. The Waikaloa Highlands land deal made under Mayor Billy Kenoi was scuttled after honest County officials learned that Sulla breached the contract. Sulla conveyed the property to a for-profit Sulla-formed company to flip the land for a quick million dollar windfall. The property owner with whom Sulla worked was a Russian cocaine dealer, Stefan Martirosian, who now sits in a Moscow prison.
Before filing Mark Recktenwald’s proposed ‘License to Kill,’ the Chief Justice recused himself for conflicting interests from considering the aforementioned intelligence that Horowitz brought against Tamm. Recktenwald then safe-harbored Tamm and Sulla, and further defended Dubin, by violating a number of laws. (7)
Horowitz delivered to Tamm, Recktenwald, Judicial and Ethics Commissioners, irrefutable evidence of this permitted ‘Judicial Racket’, a crime syndicate officiated through Mark Recktenwald’s office, influencing the courts statewide, especially permitting corruption in the “Drug Court” of the Third Circuit Court of Hawaii wherein Sulla has been abundantly favored.
Mark Recktenwald’s appointee, Bradley Tamm helped Sulla complete the criminal conversion of the Horowitz and Kane property during Horowitz’s bankruptcy, and vicariously stole money from the doctor’s legitimate creditors. The doctor filed for bankruptcy to secure the property from Sulla. Tamm acted as attorney for the bankruptcy court trustee Howard Hu. Federal Judge Robert Faris protected Sulla too, in favor of Tamm’s filings, and turned willfully-blind to irrefutable evidence of Sulla’s crimes, intertwined Sulla’s alleged $1 billion drug trafficking enterprise.
Thus, the ‘presumption of facts’ before this court of public opinion establishes a ‘presumption of guilt.’ These presumptions raise probable cause to presume Sulla has been operating with qualified immunity in the state and federal courts as either a drug ‘kingpin’ wealthy enough to bribe fellow lawyers and judges, or alternatively, as a federal agent and rogue ‘drug informant,’ engaged in narcotics trafficking with the courts’ knowledge, protection, and assistance. No other explanation reasonably justifies the courts’ pattern and practice of willful blindness to Sulla’s unethical and illegal exploits, and Mark Recktenwald’s curiously contemporaneous ethics rule change.
Additional lawyers, judges, and ODC officials are implicated. Several have lied, regularly broken rules and laws, concealed and tampered with evidence and witnesses, hampered prosecutions, and aided-and-abetted by ‘willful blindness’ Sulla’s theft and drug trafficking operations. A court hearing illustrating the couple’s alleged ‘railroading’ by Third Circuit “Drug Court” Chief Justice Ronald Ibarra is available for viewing on RevolutionTelevision.net. Sulla’s bribed co-counsel, Stephen D. Whittaker, is also recorded therein evidencing his art of deception. (9)
Closing Arguments: Addressing the ‘Elephant Under the Carpet’ in Hawaii Government
This is a ‘defining moment’ in the history of the State of Hawaii, widely known for corruption in government. The three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial governors are no longer trusted by a vast majority of voters. Long term residents know public corruption has trampled on human rights, and stifled small businesses and free commerce. Hawaii is nationally-known for being among the least friendly places for small business.
Human rights violations are known to abound throughout the State. Examples include the judicial railroading opposed by masses of native Hawaiians protecting sacred Mauna Kea. Another is the recent rebuke citizens slapped-upon the multi-national Spectrum company that attempted to railroad our local Olelo Community Media. Then there is the opposition to misappropriated billions of dollars in Rail Project appropriations. More misappropriations of money occurred earlier when the AGs’ office somehow disappeared billions of dollars that was supposed to be given to damaged homeowners. Many thousands of families were victimized by multi-national corporations abusing the local courts to foreclose illegally on citizens’ properties. These miscarriages of justice have not been forgotten.
Another intolerable example affects the health and safety of Hawaiians, especially youngsters placed at risk from poorly tested vaccinations. A well-organized highly vocal majority of Hawaii citizens have appeared at hearings to oppose legislated Health Department impositions. These are widely known to be risking and children’s health through false assurances of ‘safety’ and questionable efficacy. These safety assurances obviously conflict with the information in vaccine package inserts. U.S. Congressman Bill Posey’s Vaccine Safety Study Act has been stonewalled on Capital Hill since 2017. Treasonous influence has damaged the American people while special interests reap rewards.
This article is written as a public duty to protect society from covert actions by shadowy governors and intelligence agencies representing concealed commercial interests. This article seeks to prevent further damage to Hawaii citizens, and millions of mainland victims damaged by Hawaii’s secret ‘black market’ drug trades.
Obviously, we provide this public knowledge and legislative Notice in opposition to Judge Recktenwald’s proposed ethics rule change. This would grant all lawyers uncertain amounts of immunity for allegedly working undercover in investigations by the CIA et. al. This planned permit might even conceivably grant a license to kill, maim, cheat, steal, and damage honest citizens.
Those especially vulnerable are minorities, the Kanaka Maoli, impacted by genocide in accordance with the dark history of the Hawaiian Islands and its damaging intrusion into the culture and property rights of natives.
Courts of law here are where the rubber has met the road since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii when the commercially-biased corrupted courts began to damage the disadvantaged. In all these matters of social concern, outrage is justified.
Such injustice has always relied most heavily on covert actions administered by the Anglo-American oligarchy, today called the Deep State, poisoning the judicial branch of government.
Consequently, it is everyone’s duty to secure for everyone’s benefit honest, open, and lawful administration of justice in our courts.
Whereas, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice” (State v. Ross, 974 P. 2d 11 – Haw: Supreme Court 1998), and “Reality controls over uninformed perception.” (Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 31 F.3d 1363, 1372 (7th Cir.1994)).
Mark Recktenwald ‘s proposed HRPC Rule 8.4 amendment must be DENIED for these reasons. Moreover, Mr. Recketenwald must be disqualified for bias from this administration.
This conclusion is most reasonable and responsible given the aforementioned facts and following concluding argument:
The ‘Reality’ established by the aforementioned facts, preponderance of evidence, pattern and practice of blatant bias, and recorded malfeasance by judges favoring the alleged ‘Judicial Racket,’ and the presumption of guilt established by this Reality, precludes not only Mark Recktenwald’s proposed ethics rule exception, but also the Chief Justice’s involvement in investigating and deciding this matter altogether. Mark Recktenwald must recuse himself from this administration to satisfy the appearance of justice.
“The integrity of the judicial process depends on ‘justice … satisfy[ing] the appearance of justice.'” Brown, 70 Haw. at 467, 776 P.2d at 1188. Our judicial system . . . also rests on the premise that ‘the law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favour in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea.'” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 725*725 820, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986) (quoting 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 361).
In the instant case, however, the Reality detailed above shows a violation of Mr. Recktenwald’s duty, and a pattern of violations against that foundational presumption. Mr. Recktenwald’s proposed amendment does not only reflect his personal bias, but Deep State influence showing criminal conflicting interests.
“While the principle that ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice’ exhorts judges to ‘hold the balance nice, clear and true,’ [i]d. at 822 [106 S.Ct. 1580] (citation omitted), it does not invite any party concerned about or dissatisfied with the outcome of a case to seek a different judge.’ Ross, 89 Hawai`i at 380-81, 974 P.2d at 20-21 (brackets omitted).” Fortunately, however, by chance, these authors discovered Mr. Recketenwald’s generally-concealed proposal to change the rule.
Reality thereby has been made apparent. This more complete disclosures affords the legislature and society the opportunity to address the inconsistencies in Mark Recktenwald’s administrative process; to examine the rule change by its appearances; requiring clarifications and honorable actions, including Judge Recktenwald’s recusal for good causes shown.
“Based upon these principles,” the Hawaii Supreme Court “held that ‘the test for disqualification due to the `appearance of impropriety’ is an objective one, based not on the beliefs of the petitioner or the judge, but on the assessment of a reasonable impartial onlooker apprised of all the facts’ as to ‘whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.’ Id. at 380, 974 P.2d at 20.”
This concern certainly arises in this instant for the ‘reasonable impartial onlooker.” If Mark Recktenwald is permitted to administer the proposed closed door proceeding certifying this rule change then clearly covert actors committing criminal actions justified as ‘investigations’ will be authorized lie all about it, and get off scott-free as Mr. Sulla has repeatedly demonstrated.
Here, permitting the proposed ethics rule exception and lawyers’ exemption clearly favors dishonest lawyers and dishonest government. Organized crimes, public corruption, even the damaging ‘narco-empire’ is favored by this outrageous disservice to honesty in the judicary. Public corruption is heavily invested in influencing lawmakers and the courts to grow insatiable appetites for political control, covert actions, backroom deals, greater wealth, and more damage to the health and welfare of people everywhere. This pro-mob bias increasingly damages society through greater drug use and drug abuse.
Victims are lulled into submission by the biased, divisive, and distracting media. Mr. Recktenwald’s proposed rule change didn’t even generate a single press release or news story before the time of this writing. This is effective social engineering favoring public corruption and system-wide degeneration of civility in favor of organized crime.
Citizens should not be made to suffer any more from lacking informed consent. The legislative intent behind the Sunshine Act was to promote transparency in government. Here, Mr. Recktenwald’s administration barely announced a potentially deadly ethics rule change, and planned a closed door meeting to approve it.
Our public duty discourages biased and dishonest government. Anything less violates the HAWAI‘I REVISED CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (HRCJC). Mark Recktenwald is alleged here to have violated these rules by his administration of his proposed amendment. These violations include:
HRCJC Rule 1.1. requires that “A judge shall comply with the law.” Mark Recktenwald’s rule change proposed for closed door determination without an open hearing appears to violate the State’s Sunshine Act.
HRCJC Rule 1.1. requires that “[a] judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Mark Recktenwald’s proposed rule change appears to undermine public confidence in the independence of the judiciary constrained by commercially-driven intelligence agencies giving deference to lawyers’ who misbehave during ill-defined ‘covert actions’ and mysterious ‘investigations.’ The integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is, therefore, damaged.
The entire proposal gives the “appearance of impropriety,” especially since the preponderance of evidence and precipitating facts are made publicly known as aforementioned appear to reasonable persons as unconscionable. Drug and human trafficking, sex slavery and pedophilia, and conspiracy to administer corruption through the courts might be considered ‘covert actions’ by reasonable observers. They certainly give the appearance of impropriety.
HRCJC Rule 2.2. requires that “A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all the duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” Here, the proposed amendment justifies lying, defrauding people, and worse, justified by uncertain oversight, unidentified administrative procedures, and unfairly favoring liars licensed to commit torts and crimes without the public’s knowledge or consent. This partiality favoring ‘Deep State’ agents and agencies operating above and beyond laws characteries uncivilized society and anarchy, not a republic or democracy.
HRCJC Rule 2.2. requires that a “judge shall perform the duties of judicial office without bias or prejudice.” Yet, Mark Recktenwald’s proposed rule change biases victims of covert actions and covert investigations, and prejudices their due process in civil as well as civil proceedings. It also discourages and hampers legitimate law enforcement and prosecutors that rely on true and correct discovery and honest disclosures, as well as ODC rulings. Clearly, the proposed rule change favors political affiliations with covert intelligence agencies and concealed commercial interests, and prejudices many litigants.
HRCJC Rule 2.4(b) and (c). requires that “A judge shall not permit . . . political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.” Yet the proposed rule change appears to be motivated by political and financial interests and relationships involving a preponderance of facts proving organized criminal influence underlying the proposed amendment.
Further, “A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.” Yet, by Mark Recktenwald’s proposal, it appears that a covert agency, or racketeering enterprise, has influenced the judge to advance this amendment, and preclude it from open hearing. No public discourse, nor reasonable professional notice. This silence evidences wrongdoing. “Conduct which forms a basis for inference is evidence. Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.” (at 154) United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 US 149 – Supreme Court 1923.
HRCJC Rule 2.11. requires Judge Recktenwald’s disqualification or recusal in these matters, because this rule states: “(a) Subject to the rule of necessity, a judge shall disqualify or recuse himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, . . .” By reason of the aforementioned appearances of impropriety, bias, rule violations, etc., Mr. Recktenwald should recuse himself from further involvement in this matter, or otherwise be disqualified by the Hawaii State legislature.
Furthermore, it is these authors’ opinions that Mark Recktenwald should be relieved of his duties by legislative mandate, in order to vindicate the judiciary whose integrity has been severely damaged by Justice Recktenwald’s administration of these and related matters as detailed above. Key officials in his administration are likewise subject to ‘early retirement.’
In conclusion, Mark Recktenwald’s proposed change to Rule 8.4 of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct should be DENIED as an assault against civility and judicial integrity. The rule change appears to be self-serving and gives the impression of impropriety favoring commercial corruption and special interest influence.
The proposal appears to be a contrivance that would damage numerous litigants while prejudicing government and law enforcers in favor of covert actions and shadowy personalities. The rule change favors covert commercial control in politics at the expense of justice. The rule change neglects informed consent and human rights to know if a lawyer is lying to the court and his victims.
If the proposal is passed, it would not simply justify and enable lying lawyers that would hinder law enforcement, justice, and fair play in the courts. Passage would add to the attrition that devastates litigants and lawyers, especially those financially-disadvantaged, yet forced to face adversity to secure their rights and properties.
Considering that customary litigation is often severely distressing and life endangering enough, this ethics rule change empowering deception in the courts and law enforcement vicariously grants lying lawyers a ‘License to Kill’ by fraud, misrepresentations, malicious prosecutions, and fraudulent concealment.
(1) Federal procedure in matters of covert action require legislative oversight, according to Covert Action and Clandestine Activities of the Intelligence Community: Selected Definitions in Brief. This document states: “Applicable statutes that govern intelligence activities under Title 50 of the U.S. Code emphasize prior notification to the congressional intelligence committees for each separate activity. Under its Title 10 U.S. Code authorities, however, the Department of Defense generally provides notification of certain types of secret or clandestine military operations to the Armed Services committees after their commencement, often by briefing Congress as part of a larger, supported military operation or campaign.” The same should be true for Hawaii’s judicial branch of government and Hawaii attorneys, reflecting a free and open society in accord with the state’s Sunshine Act.
(2) According to the US law, covert action is “an activity of the United State government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the [government] will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly” (Scott, 2004: 324). This definition does not include traditional counter-intelligence and counter-espionage, diplomatic, traditional military or law enforcement activities. As a Senate Report explained, “activities which may be undertaken in secret but where the role of the United States will be disclosed or acknowledged once such activities take place are not covert actions” (Radsan, 2009: 534). This definition excludes every action whose preparation is secret but whose clandestinity disappears as soon as American troops arrive on the ground (ibid: 534).
Nakamoto v. Fasi, 64 Haw. 17, 20, 635 P.2d 946, 950 (1981) (brackets in original). “Thus, article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution was `designed to protect the individual from arbitrary, oppressive, and harassing conduct on the part of government officials.’ Fasi, 64 Haw. at 23, 635 P.2d [at] 952.” Quino, 74 Haw. at 178, 840 P.2d at 366 (Levinson, J., concurring).
Proposal to Amend Rule 8.4(c) of the Hawai5i Rules of Professional Conduct EXEMPTING COVERT GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS
The Supreme Court of Hawai5i seeks public comment regarding a proposal to amend Rule 8.4(c) of the Hawai5i Rules of Professional Conduct and to add a new accompanying Comment. The proposal would clarify that attorneys, supervising or participating in lawful, covert, government investigations, are not in violation of the prohibition against deceitful or dishonest conduct, if certain requirements are met. The proposal is attached hereto.
Comments about the proposed amendments should be submitted, in writing, no later than Friday, September 20, 2019, to the Judiciary Communications & Community Relations Office by mail to 417 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, by facsimile to 539-4801, or via the Judiciary’s website.
(3) As made known to Mark Recktenwald within Horowitz’s Complaint that appears to have prompted the Judge’s proposed ethics rule change, the Supreme Court of Hawaii oversteps its jurisdiction and legislatively-granted authority. Horowitz wrote:
“The available state forums do not comport with the Hawaii State Legislature’s intent
expressed in the State’s Code of Ethics pursuant to judicial accountability.
Prior to addressing the Respondent [Tamm’s] alleged wrongdoings, a threshold matter of the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s authority to hear and decide this matter involving one of its own, ODC Executive
Director Tamm, is raised by the State’s 1978 Code of Ethics. This existing balance of powers
provision states in relevant part:
‘It was the decision of your Committee that the judiciary should not be given specific
exemption in the Constitution. However, this does not preclude the legislature from
recognizing the sufficiency of the judicial canons of ethics.” The committee believes that the
legislature’s residual powers in the area of ethics provisions for judges should be maintained
as a precautionary measure while at the same time concurring with the current statutory
exemption of judges and justices. Members of your Committee expressed concern that the
present judicial canons of ethics do not include [financial] disclosure requirements
[revealing conflicting interests].’
“This Code of Ethics Committee’s legislative decision raises several questions in this case
absent a legislatively-authorized administrative board that is jurisdictionally-empowered to hear
this kind of Complaint charging ‘brother Tamm’ with ethics violations, torts and crimes. Fact-finders
and remedy-makers in this case arbitrarily assemble without official jurisdiction, and do so
in private. These circumstances give the clear impression of administrative impropriety. Shall we
‘just make it up as we go along?’ Tamm, Hu, Dubin and Sulla have modeled such misbehavior.
Should their damaging impositions upon the Complainants and society be extended here without
“In other words, the State Supreme Court, Ethics Commission, and Commission on Judicial
Conduct, each under the presumed sole oversight and discretion of Chief Justice Recktenwald,
oversteps its legal authority to prosecute complaints against judicial appointees. These
circumstances undermine the legislative and executive balance of powers. Action here by justice
officials without jurisdiction would be un-Constitutional and un-American.”
(4) The opioid crisis in America parallels the methamphetamine crisis in America. History records both drugs–opium from Afghanistan trafficked covertly through China and the Pacific rim countries and gateway Hawaii, as well as methamphetamine’s major source issuing from the Big Island–generate huge risks to public health, the economy, and National Security. What if the proposed exemption is leveraged by drug dealers abusing law licenses and court influences.
(5) Sulla filed in his defense the U.S. District Court under Judge J. Michael Seabright (in CV 15 00186JMS-BMK), “Plaintiffs allege unlawful church activities by the Moving Defendants, referring to a religion that the U.S. Supreme Court has already evaluated and found to be protected under the U.S. Constitution in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Ore. 2009), “guided by the unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)(holding that the federal government could not ban the Daime tea when used for religious purposes).
To the contrary, including compounding evidence of Sulla’s fraud and crimes by omissions, misrepresentation, and cunning diversions, Sulla’s DMT unlicensed manufacturing in the State of Hawaii, as in every state of the United States, is illegal. The “tea” must be imported under federal license exclusively. Quoting Gonzales, the Supreme Court of United States ruled, “The injunction [affirmed] requires the church to import the tea pursuant to federal permits, to restrict control over the tea to persons of church authority, and to warn particularly susceptible UDV members of the dangers of hoasca. See Preliminary Injunction ¶¶ 2, 5-12, 32-33, App. F to App. to Pet. for Cert. 249a, 250a-252a, 258a-259a.”
(6) It is not professional misconduct for a lawyer to supervise or participate in lawful covert activity in the investigation of violations of civil or criminal law or constitutional rights or in lawful intelligence- gathering activity, provided the lawyer’s conduct is otherwise in compliance with these Rules.w
Under U.S. law, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) must lead covert operations unless the president finds that another agency should do so and properly informs the Congress. Normally, the CIA is the U.S. government agency legally allowed to carry out covert action. The CIA’s authority to conduct covert action comes from the National Security Act of 1947.
(7) Dr. Horowitz made known to Judge Recktenwald, fellow judges and ODC officials, that Sulla operates at the heart of a ‘narco-empire’ with personal responsibility over DMT production and distribution to the nation.
Previously disciplined by Public Censure, the senior Sulla is charged by Horowitz and Kane with drug trafficking and money laundering through their Sulla-stolen home in Pahoa–Hawaii’s methamphetamine and cannabis capital. Court records show Sulla stole the doctor’s real estate by forging documents. After Third Circuit Court judge Ronald Ibarra granted Sulla’s strawman the couple’s property, Sulla positioned agents to operate the ‘health spa’ for ‘ayahuasca tourism.’
(8) Mark Recktenwald’s appointee, Executive Director Bradly R. Tamm, is claimed by Horowitz and Kane to have committed multiple crimes, extending a pattern and practice of public corruption. (5)
(a) hindered prosecution of Gary Victor Dubin, Paul J. Sulla, Jr. and Stephen D. Whittaker, by hindering also the conviction of Dubin, who is alleged to have conspired with Sulla, and Sulla with Tamm, to commit first degree theft of the $1M spa property. This is a Class C felony under HRS § 710-1029.
(b) tampered with evidence by concealing and dismissing Kane’s evidence requested by Tamm’s subordinate investigators in violation of §710-1076 Tampering with physical evidence law.
(c) tampered with witnesses in violation of HRS §710-1072 for having withheld Kane’s testimony which he was not privileged to withhold; and absented Kane’s witness that was summoned by ODC investigators. “A person who attempts to affect testimony, or the absence of it, by, e.g., persuasion or trickery,” §710-1072 as Tamm did, is guilty of a misdemeanor;
(d) conspired with Sulla to dispossess Horowitz and Kane from their property, in violation HRS § 705-520; the object of which was first degree theft in violation of HRS § 708-830.5.
(9) While adjudicating the appeal of the Ibarra Court in Civ.No. 05-1-0196 (CAAP 16-1-0000162) The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), under Mark Recktenwald’s supervision, recently broke several rules and laws to conceal, protect, and indemnify Sulla, according to their May 2, 2019 ruling and Horowitz’s motion to reconsider. Another appeal by Horowitz is planned.
The ICA would not consider new evidence showing Sulla was caught by County of Hawaii tax officials forging a ‘warranty deed’ to the victims’ property. The true warranty deed was granted by the County to the couple’s ‘Royal’ ministry. Tax Department officials noticed Sulla of the wrongdoing, as evidenced here.
The ICA did, however, void Sulla’s non-judicial foreclosure soon after Horowitz and Kane publicly confronted Sulla’s and Recktenwald’s main protector–ODC Director Tamm.
‘The HOROKANE’ confronted Tamm following his presentation at a Bar Association meeting discussing disciplinary policies. Tamm disclosed at that meeting that more than 700 complaints against Hawaii lawyers are filed yearly, of which only 150 are ‘investigated,’ from which only 3 or 4 lawyers are actually charged and disciplined.
Tamm hindered prosecution and dismissed to conceal the couple’s ODC complaints against Sulla, Dubin, and Whittaker. Tamm’s subordinates at the ODC had directed Kane to submit evidence of Sulla and Dubin’s double-dealing. She did, but Tamm dismissed it without recusing himself for conflicting interest.