 Welcome, Anne Aloha. My name is Mark Schlaufe. I am the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program. While the impeachment inquiry of President Trump is proceeding in Washington, D.C., we've had our own ongoing impeachment proceedings in Honolulu. Today, I will be discussing the current impeachment proceedings against Honolulu prosecutor Keith Connoisseur. My guest today is Keith Kiyuchi. Keith Kiyuchi is the attorney who represents Tracy Yoshimura. Tracy Yoshimura is the man who has filed the petitions to impeach Honolulu prosecutor Keith Connoisseur. Keith and I will discuss the current status of the impeachment proceedings against the Honolulu prosecutor and where they're going. Keith, welcome. Thank you. Okay. What are these impeachment proceedings all about? What's the basis for them? Please. So last December, December of 2018, we filed a petition for impeachment of the city prosecutor and the impetus for that really was the ongoing investigation of Catherine Gillo, but also involved in December of last year, November of last year, we made aware that Mr. Connoisseur got a target letter. So that's what causes the first file, the first impeachment petition that grinded through the court. And ultimately, because our signatures which reported the petition were mostly electronic, Judge Frabturi dismissed that. So we filed a petition for rid of mandamus with the voice of Supreme Court November 15. And shortly before that, we filed a second petition for impeachment to try to get the issue back in front of the circuit court. But it would be pending what the Supreme Court decided on the petition for rid of mandamus. Okay, so you've told us a lot. Yes. Okay, now, I mean, what is the purpose of impeachment petition or petition for impeachment? What's the goal of all of that? It's to remove the prosecutor from office. This homeless city charter has recall proceedings as impeachment proceeding. So impeachment proceedings of like a mayor or city council member or the prosecutor requires 500 signatures. And then it goes to the homeless circuit court or circuit court judge decides whether under the city charter, there's been malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance committed. Okay, all right. So the purpose is to get rid of the prosecutor. And the basis is this malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance. And a lot of people, what does that mean, right? So the language actually goes back to the 1920s when the impeachment provisions first show up in the city charter. Malfeasance is basically an act committed by an individual. Misfeasance is you commit an act but do it negligently or sloppily. And non-feasance is you had a duty to commit an act, but you didn't do it. So in our case, while we cited all three, I think, in a lot of respects, it's non-feasance or what he did. Okay, all right. Or didn't do. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so in this particular case, in your petition, what is the non-feasance or what are the acts? And the target letter, is that part of it too? The target letter is part of that. What is the target letter? The target letter is something that federal prosecutors send to somebody saying that you're the target of a federal investigation. It's different than a subject letter. A subject letter says you may be a subject part of the investigation. Target letter means you're specifically targeted, that you will be indicted and it's basically a letter to point out to me to come in, to operate. That's what the just the letter is. So prosecutor, he's kind of sure, got a target letter from the federal government. And what was that about? We don't know. I mean, we don't know. I mean, you know, there are things we suspect that he did or didn't do. Some of them involving Catherine Cale Loha, which is what all of the center's on. Some of it involving other investigations. We can see that with the number of people that they called in front of the grand jury and what you read in the press, there's more than just the Catherine Cale Loha aspect of the investigation. But we really don't know. We know that he got a target letter. It's pretty serious, especially for a hundredth of a prosecutor, right? I mean, is that it? Okay, now, besides the target letter, is there anything else? Yes. Okay. So what we've also alleged is his lack of supervision over people in his office. And the two examples are Catherine Cale Loha and his first deputy, Chastisabu, because Chastisabu got a subject letter, meaning that you're subject to investigation by the federal government. But a lot of our focus is on what he didn't do with Catherine Cale Loha. That's kind of sure. Yes. What Connoisseur didn't do with Catherine Cale Loha. And the examples have been published in the press, especially Hawaii News Now, where they've talked about how she was actually assigned to her brother's own investigation. She was assigned to her uncle's own investigation. So she was controlling a lot of things. And our view is that Mr. Connoisseur certainly should have known this or checked that because he's head of the office. And she has no immediate superior than the Mr. Connoisseur. But one of the things we also mentioned in the latest petition was the Dr. Edel Letter, which surfaced with the press. The Dr. Edel Letter was a letter that was written sometime in, I believe, 2014. And it talked about how Catherine Cale Loha was disabled and was unable to go through a deposition, which was curious, because this is 2014. And she's going through and prosecuted a lot of criminal cases. And our allegation is really once that letter came out, and certainly Mr. Connoisseur knew about it in June of 2014 because there were federal proceedings where that letter or her personal file was subpoenaed. And Mr. Connoisseur was represented in the federal court by this Corporation Constable of the Office. So there was knowledge of that letter, knowledge of what was in that letter. What was the letter with respect to her? The letter was really saying that she didn't have the capacity to, she was undergoing some type of treatment with this Dr. Edel. She didn't have the capacity to appear at a deposition. She specifically said deposition because what she was trying to do is avoid a deposition in the lawsuit that was filed by her uncle and grandmother. So that's why the letter was concocted. Now a lot of people have said, well, it was obviously a concocted letter. The doctor made that up, so she really wasn't disabled. That's kind of not the point. The point, if you're the city prosecutor, is that if you knew about the letter, you certainly knew about it in June of 2014. You should have investigated the circumstances that you did it. And so what I hear you saying is she was active in the prosecutor's office at the same time. Is that right? And yet there was a letter that got her off being deposed. Right. And the letter is from a doctor that said she was unable to be deposed because of a medical condition. Which doesn't seem to add up. It doesn't add up, but at the very least it's non-feasance. So if you're a prosecutor and that's your immediate superior, head of your quote unquote career criminal unit, you should be looking into that. And he did look into that, which is kind of our whole point. So the petition for impeachment that we filed in 2018 is different than the one we just filed. The one we just filed includes the allegations about the Ido letter because we just found out about that. And even the circumstances of those federal proceedings are kind of strange. Initially, all of those proceedings were sealed and then Civil Pete got them unsealed and then they were resealed three days later. So we were able to get copies of the files during the three, four day period when they were unsealed. So we have all of that information. And it's very enlightening because Mr. Connisher was a party that sought to quash the subpoena in federal court. So that's why he's got knowledge of it. Oh, wow. Yeah. Okay. I wasn't aware of it. Yeah. And a lot of it really was if you're a party and it doesn't matter whether it was in a personnel file, it doesn't matter whether you knew about it in June of 2014. So what did you do after that? And part of why I think my client, Mr. Yoshimura, was so upset was because in the fall of 2014, he tried to get the first indictment against him, first indictment criminal against indictment against him and his co-defendants dismissed with prejudice. So this, the etal letter was never just court. Mr. Yoshimura was indicted or had a criminal case against him, which was ultimately resolved. The first case was dismissed because the prosecutor's office felt that there were things that went on that was inappropriate. And one of the things the press focused on was the fact that the first indictment occurred on May 1, 2014, and the etal letter was still in effect. So it has been pointed out by the press. Effectively, she did Hawaii's largest gambling indictment on May 1, 2014. But she was incompetent. Right. Exactly. Exactly. So that's an interesting question. So Mr. Yoshimura was indicted for gambling or... These, what they call products, direct sweepstakes. So his position, yes. And she was the prosecutor for that case, and she had been ruled incompetent. She had a letter from a doctor saying she really wasn't able to do here in a deposition. So why should she be able to work as a prosecutor? Is that what your argument would be about? Right. Exactly. And that's kind of the position the press has been taking is how in the world could you do that and you have this letter? Again, a lot of people have said, well, the letter is concocted. But it doesn't matter whether the letter is concocted. The letter exists. And the knowledge of it. Right. And I think the question becomes, well, did Mr. Kanashirov have an impersonal fault? You know what? It doesn't really matter. Because he knew about it in June of 2014. Because he was a party of the case. He was a party in the case when they tried to quash the subpoena. So he certainly had knowledge about it. Okay. So you were the attorney for Mr. Yoshimura at the time. Is that correct? Back in actually, in 2014, Miles first represented him. Miles Briner. Miles Briner, okay. And Miles represented him because we thought that I would be called as a witness. And the reason I would be called as a witness because in Tracy's first indictment, they indicted him for conduct on arcades that he did not own. Back in 2014, he owned no arcade. Yet, despite that, they traced all of these machines to arcades that they said that he owned. And we knew that was false. So at that time, in 2014, it looked like a defective witness. Because? Because I would be able to test the fact that he didn't own any of those arcades. So it was a little different in 2016 when he was re-indicted. At some point, it was apparent that I would no longer be a fact-based witness for Miles and I together represented him. And in those cases, the criminal cases against him were ultimately dismissed. They were dismissed. He was indicted the second time in February of 2016. That case was ultimately dismissed on the Speedy Trial grounds. The employees case, the employees were indicted separately. They were dismissed on different grounds, mainly for part prosecutorial misconduct and part Speedy Trial. But there were different bases for the employees being dismissed. And there's no longer any... There's no longer any case. The prosecutors never appealed, despite the fact that the judge that made the ruling anticipated an appeal, but the prosecutors never appealed either. So after that, Mr. Yoshimura was concerned about what was happening in the prosecutor's office? Yes, and that's kind of what led in, and I think the natural question is why would you do that? I think part of it was obviously there's some animosity. I think a large part of that is Tracy really felt that when a lot of the things came out about Katharine Deload, that this just wasn't right. That there were things that Mr. Kanashiro knew about and should have prevented. And one of them was this prosecutor kind of going rogue, so to speak, in the office. There's a lot of the things that have since come out, like her prosecuting her own brother's case, or prosecuting her uncle's case. I mean, you talk about an abuse of power, we talk about that on the national level, but on the local level, that's an ultimate abuse of power. So Mr. Yoshimura felt that he had some duty or obligation to undertake that. Okay, we're going to take a short break, and then we're going to come back and I want to find out where we are now with all these petitions, where we're going, what do you think's going to happen? We're going to take a break right now and be right back. Thank you. Hi guys, I'm your host, Lillian Cumick, from Lillian's Vegan World. I come to you live every second Friday from 3pm, and this is the show where I talk about the plant-based lifestyle and veganism. So we go through recipes, some upcoming events, information about health, regarding your health, and just some ideas on how you can have a better lifestyle, eat healthier, and have fun at the same time. So do join me, I look forward to seeing you, and Aloha. Aloha. Down to energy man here. You can see me every Tuesday at 3pm here on Think Tech Hawaii. We're not on Friday anymore, so don't be looking for me on Friday. I'm on Tuesday at 3pm here on Think Tech, coming to you live and direct from the beautiful studios in downtown Honolulu's Pioneer Plaza. So please join me, and we'll talk everything about hydrogen and clean energy, not only for Hawaii, but for the whole wide world. Aloha. Welcome back. I am Mark Sklav, host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea program, and I am here with Keith Kiyuchi, and we are talking about petitions to impeach prosecutor Keith Kanashiro that Mr. Kiyuchi has filed on behalf of Tracy Yoshimura. And Keith, when we're talking, there's really pending petitions, right? Yes. There's two, and one was dismissed by Judge Crabtree because of signatures. Right. I'd like you to explain that, but then I also, what's the next petition and what's the mandamus about? But first, why did Judge Crabtree dismiss the first petition because of the electronic signatures? Well, the primary basis he dismissed it, and we cited to him, there's a Hawaii electronic signature that, I believe it's 497. And he said that, and the city said that they had the right under 497 to reject the electronic signatures, but that's not the way the statute reads. The way the statute reads, what we assert is that the city can carve out an exception, but our position has been that they need to adopt rules under Chapter 91, the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act, in order to carve out that exception, which they didn't do. It's kind of a strange statute because Hawaii electronic signatures act. One hand says you have to accept the electronic signatures. On the other hand, it says, it shall not prevent the government from rejecting electronic signatures, but in that same section of the statute, it says that they have to specifically state what the exceptions are. So your basic argument, as I hear you saying it, was that a law says you can have electronic signatures unless you have a rule that says you can't, and they didn't create a rule, they were just making a sort of ad hoc decision. Well, and that's the whole idea, because Chapter 91 exists because you can't just pull the law out of the air. You have to go through public hearings, you have to give notice and people would testify. And ironically, there's a very similar case in Utah Supreme Court, decided case Anderson v. Bell, that was almost on an identical statute, and they said, no, you've got to, you can't just arbitrarily reject the electronic signature. And there is no law in Hawaii, right? That says you can't have electronic signatures for petitions to impeach the prosecutor. There's no law. There's no law like that. It doesn't go that detail. In fact, part of the problem we have, as the press has pointed out, is there is no law on a lot of the issues we're dealing with, I mean, even under the city charter provision. So that makes it kind of challenging because the press has wanted to know, define malfeasance, misfeasance, non-feasance. Makes it difficult. So what was the corporation council and the city clerk's argument about the electronic signatures that, I mean, why did they say they are not good and why do you say they are? Well, they said that there was room for fraud and they didn't specify what the fraud would be. By that time, by the time we were in front of Judge Crabtree on that issue, Tracy, Mr. Yoshimura had secured a different platform. Initially, when we filed the first petition, we went through change.org and change.org did not have the protections that DocuSign had. DocuSign is used not only in courts, but it's used across the nation for all kinds of transactions. So Hughes DocuSign is a platform and they distinguish between the two petitions. The first petition was filed using change.org. The second petition was used with a combination of electronic signatures from DocuSign. So everything in DocuSign has an audit trail so you can trace it back so you eliminate the fraud. And in the state of Hawaii, are there instances that you can use electronic signatures for legal matters? Yes, in fact, you can use electronic signatures to register to vote. I mean, you can register online. You can also use electronic signatures and now the courts take electronic filing, which means that you don't have any wet signatures on any document. Give you a good example, and this is what we are getting from the judge's rapture, is that DocuSign is used by all sorts of companies, including I do work for a structured settlement purchase company called JG Wentworth. That would use nothing but electronic signatures in their documents. And the courts accept that pursuant to the Hawaii electronic signatures tax, Hawaii won't accept that for a petition. Okay, now, one case was dismissed. Yes. You filed another and you've asked the Supreme Court to review the first case. Where is the status? Where do you go from here? Where do we, what's the next step? What are you waiting for? So right now we filed a petition on November 15th. With the Supreme Court. With the Supreme Court, and they're reviewing that. And we filed a second impeachment petition just before that. I think it's my recollection, the 11th of November. And that's scheduled for hearing on January 23rd. But that doesn't go because the judge's rapture is ruling unless the Supreme Court grants it for the mandamus. So the original decision by Judge Crabtree will control unless the Supreme Court says it's not right. Right, and we could, you know, it's pointed out we could appeal it. But the real reason we I can still file the appeal, I haven't until this week Friday to file the appeal, which we'll do. But the written mandamus is really the main the main avenue we need to speak because if we don't get a written mandamus then we don't make the end of the year deadline. What is that about? The final deadline is unless he's Mr. Connoisseur's removed from office by December 31st. The city charter says that the first deputy replaces him. And if the first deputy doesn't exist or for some reason doesn't want it, then the mayor appoints him. Mr. Yoshimura's position has always been the voters should decide. People should decide. People should have the power of the ballot box. I see at least a couple of candidates running for prosecutor said that, you know, they want to clean the office up. They want to, you know, remove the distrust that exists. And I think that's the power of the ballot box. We haven't either Mr. Yoshimura and I have taken a position as to which candidate would be appropriate. But we do think that the voters should decide not in the first deputy certainly shouldn't be appointing him. Especially under the circumstances where he's under a microscope right now and the mayor shouldn't appoint him. With all due respect to the mayor, that should be the power of the people in the ballot box. You have to know by December 31st whether he's going to be removed. And that's going to be, yeah, that's a tough timeline. So you still have to have a hearing. And today is the 9th. The decision with enough time to have a hearing in order to win or lose at the hearing, I suppose. I guess what's the procedure at the hearing? The judge hears evidence? Yeah, the judge would hear evidence. I mean, it's not real clear because prior to, they changed the law I think after the Rean Monchal impeachment where it used to be with the Supreme Court and now it's with a circuit court judge. Why they changed the law is kind of curious because the Supreme Court wouldn't take evidence as much as they would take, I guess, briefing. Maybe that's why they did it because maybe the circuit court judge would need to take evidence of what Balfe's and his fees. I mean, that's why we first contemplated and that was kind of the schedule that Judge Bradbury had set out. Oh, you're waiting. We're waiting. We have a January 23rd hearing, but that January 23rd hearing is not going to go on unless the Supreme Court decides. Everything is kind of dependent on what the Supreme Court does. And if they do not grant your mandamus then you would appeal. And then who knows how long that'll take. And the question is, and I pointed out in my written mandamus, even the December 31st headline, as important as that is, and we have an appeal heard by the time it becomes moot, I do not want it to become moot because I think this is an important issue. So, I mean, the argument is it becomes moot once the elections are held. Well, I kind of disagree with that. I think before. Well, technically he prosecutors enough until December 31st, which is kind of an interesting you know, it's kind of different than the government anyway. So, he is still the prosecutor. But he is no longer in the office. That was something happened because of the Attorney General. The Attorney General filed a petition in February of this year to ask him to be suspended from the practice of law because he got the target letter. It's Claire Connors. And as a result of that he took leave, the voters would find he's still collecting his gallery. He's been seen at least once in the parking lot with his administrative assistant which I really got some issues with. And I think Yoshimura does as well. So, I think the best thing is to remove him from office. You move him from office the sooner you can get the elector to decide who goes in. Whether we have one election I think that's important. In the time we have left why should we care? I mean, why not just let it go? I think we should care because our government should not have the kind of stench that it does now. Frankly, I think this whole Kailoha matter just doesn't involve Mr. Countess but I think the entire matter has made people distrustful of the criminal justice system. And they have every right to do that. And I think, as I said, a lot of the people running as candidates for city prosecutor want to restore the public trust. I think a lot of the things that have been alleged and a lot of things have happened like DUI cases being dismissed or the electricians that may be small but that's a symptom that you shouldn't have is a power that goes beyond all of that. I mean, an absolute power and this is what's going on in Washington DC right now is that if you've got that kind of power that power needs to be curbed. So I think that's why people should care. People should care whenever there is an abuse of power by any of our elected officials and anybody under him. I think that's why people should care. Keith Kiyuchi, the next few days will be important and we'll see what happens in all of this and the petitions to impeach Keith Kanyashiro, the prosecutor. And that's it. That's it for today. Thank you very much. I'll see you in the new year. Aloha.