Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:

560

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS ) CIVIL NO. 18-00118-KJM-NONE

TRUSTEE FOR LSF8 MASTER )
PARTICIPATION TRUST, ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION FOR ORDER
Plaintiff, ) REMANDING ACTION TO STATE
) COURT; EXHIBITS “A” - “L”
vs. )
)
TALA RAYMOND FONOTI; )
WILLADEAN LEHUANANI GRACE; )
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.; )
JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; )
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE )
CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE )
ENTITIES 1-50; AND DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
)
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, BY ITS OFFICE )
OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, )
)
Intervening )
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
)
ROSE DRADI, DAVID KEANU SAI, )
AND DEXTER KAIAMA, )
)
Respondents. )
)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:
561

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

RE: JURISDICTION, REMOVAL AND REMAND ..................................... 9

III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................11

A. OCP Objects to the Notice of Removal as Untimely ..........................11

B. OCP Objects to the Consent to Removal as Untimely........................12

C. Any Right to Remove was Waived by the Respondents’ Conduct .... 13

D. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Purely State Law Claims ............ 13

E. Sai’s Claim of Diplomatic Immunity is Without Merit ......................14

1. The United States Does Not Recognize the

Kingdom of Hawai‘i .................................................................15

2. The United States Does Not Recognize Sai

as Being an Authorized Representative
of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i .......................................................18

3. Sai’s Mortgage Relief Scam is Outside the Scope

of Immunity...............................................................................19

F. Removal Violated Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P ............................................21

G. Immediate Remand is Sought .............................................................24

i
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:
562

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case Page

Algal Partners, L..P. v. Santos, No. CIV. 13-00562 LEK,

2014 WL 1653084, at *2 (D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2014) ............................................18

Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc.,

93 F.3d 593, 594–95 (9th Cir.1996) ...................................................................10

Baker v. Stehura, Civ. No. 09–00615 ACK–BMK,

2010 WL 3528987, at *4–5 (D.Haw. Sep. 8, 2010) ...........................................17

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) ............... 26

Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546,

106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) ..............................................................10

Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.1995)...................................................13

Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir.1986).......................................13

Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir.1993) ..................................................10

Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770,

2017 WL 6601872, at *2 (9th Cir. 2017) ...........................................................11

Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.1999) ....................................10

Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996) ..........................................14

First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229
(Ct. App. 2013) ...................................................................................................19

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir.1984) .................................27

Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980) ................... 12

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................11,14

ii
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:
563

Gomes v. ANGOP, Angola Press Agency, 2012 WL 3637453,

at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2012), aff'd sub nom.
Gomes v. ANGOP, 541 Fed.Appx. 141 (2d Cir. 2013)......................................15

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593,
124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) ............................................................10

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543, 94 S.Ct. 1372,

39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) ........................................................................................26

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377,

114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) .............................................................. 9

Kupihea v. United States, No. CIV. 09-00311SOMKSC,

2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2009) ............................................19

LaSalle Bank Natl. Assoc. v. Johnson, No. 3:12–1030,

2012 WL 6628940, at *2 (M.D.Tenn. Nov.29, 2012) ........................................19

Maizner v. Dep't of Educ., 405 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1241 (D.Haw.2005) ................... 13

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization,

858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir.1988) ................................................................9,10

Naehu v. Hawai‘i, Civil No. 01–00579 SOM/KSC, slip op.

(D.Haw. Sept. 6, 2001) .......................................................................................16

Palmeira v. CIT Bank, N.A., No. 17-00275 ACK-RLP,

2017 WL 4797515, at *5 (D. Haw. October 24, 2017) ......................................12

Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.2005) .......................10

Sai v. Clinton, 778 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.), aff'd sub nom.

Sai v. Obama, No. 11–5142, 2011 WL 4917030
(D.C.Cir. Sept. 26, 2011) ...............................................................................18,19

Schell v. Food Mach. Corp., 87 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 300 U.S. 679, 57 S.Ct. 670, 81 L.Ed. 883 (1937) ..........................13

Smith v. Mylan Inc., 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014) .....................................12
iii
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:
564

State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Hawai‘i 43, 55, 101 P.3d 652, 664
(App.2004), aff'd, 106 Hawai‘i 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004) ...................................18

State v. French, 77 Hawai‘i 222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 649 (Haw.App.1994) ........... 15

State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai‘i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385 (2013) ..........................18

State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Haw.App.1994)......... 15

State v. Waikiki, 138 Hawai‘i 142, 377 P.3d 1060 (App. 2016) .............................17

United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1993) ..............................16

Uy v. Wells Fargo, 2011 WL 1235590 (D.Haw. 2011) ..........................................16

Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), No. CIV. 11-00407 JMS/RL,

2011 WL 2534348, at *3 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) ............................................19

Wang Foong v. United States, 69 F.2d 681, 682 (9th Cir.1934) .............................16

Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2011) ............. 11

Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136–37, 112 S.Ct. 1076,
117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992) .......................................................................................9

Yellen v. U.S., 2014 WL 2532460, at *1 (D.Haw. June 5, 2014) ...........................17

Federal Statutes

12 C.F.R. Part 1015 (MARS Rule) .........................................................................13

22 U.S.C. § 254d ......................................................................................................22

28 U.S.C. § 1331 ......................................................................................................10

28 U.S.C. § 1332 ......................................................................................................10

iv
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:
565

28 U.S.C. § 1441 ......................................................................................................11

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) .................................................................................................24

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) ............................................................................................11,12

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) .................................................................................................11

Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 ...........................................................................22

Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations ...........................................................22

Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, Article 31(c) ....................................23

Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, Article 42.........................................22

State Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(a) ......................................................................................... 5,7

Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480E ........................................................................2,4,7,13

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-2...........................................................................................6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-3...........................................................................................5

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-9.5........................................................................................6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(1) .............................................................................30

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(2)(A) .......................................................................... 5

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(2)(F)........................................................................... 6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(2)(G) .......................................................................5,6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(2)(K) .......................................................................... 6

v
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:
566

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(3) ............................................................................... 5

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(4) ............................................................................... 5

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(9) .....................................................................5,21,23

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-10(a)(10) .............................................................................6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-11.........................................................................................5

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-12..................................................................................21,23

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-15(1) ....................................................................................6

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480E-15(4) ....................................................................................6

Other

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ................................................................................................24,25

LR7.2(d) ...................................................................................................................27

Michael Keany, “Contenders to the Throne,”

Honolulu Magazine, November 2009 .................................................................20

Rob Perez, “Kingdom Still In Place Courts Told,”

Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 13, 2014 ......................................................21

vi
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:
567

Movant and Intervening Petitioner State of Hawai‘i, by its Office of Consumer

Protection (“OCP”), by and through its attorney James F. Evers, respectfully submits

its memorandum in support of its motion for order remanding the instant action back

to state court.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

By complaint filed March 3, 2015, the case initially started out as a routine

foreclosure case commenced by U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master

Participation Trust (“Plaintiff”) against the borrower/homeowners Tala Raymond

Fonoti and Willadean Lehuanani Grace (“Defendants”). The unremarkable events

that followed are, for the most part, typical of what happens in foreclosure

proceedings.

Once the parties were served, on April 13, 2016, Plaintiff moved for summary

judgment. The motion was subsequently withdrawn on July 7, 2016, and refiled on

August 23, 2016. On July 7, 2017, order was entered granting summary judgment

in Plaintiff’s favor. On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an order permitting the

underlying property to be sold without open houses, and that motion was granted by

Order entered September 29, 2017. The commissioner thereafter proceeded with the

sale of the property. On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff moved for an order confirming

the sale. What follows from there may be considered atypical.

1
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:
568

On January 25, 2018, OCP moved ex parte and was granted leave to intervene

in the case as a petitioner, and add as Respondents Rose Dradi (“Dradi”), David

Keanu Sai (“Sai”), and Dexter Kaiama (“Kaiama”) (collectively “Respondents”).

On that same date, OCP moved ex parte in petitioning the Court for the issuance of

an order to show cause as a precursor to ordering appropriate relief against the

Respondents in the absence of the Respondents satisfactorily showing their

compliance Hawai‘i’s Mortgage Rescue Fraud Prevention Act, HRS Chapter 480E.

On January 25, 2018, the Court entered its “Order Directing Respondents

Rose Dradi, David Keanu Sai, And Dexter Kaiama To Appear And Show Cause

Why They Should Not Be Found To Have Violated Applicable Consumer Protection

Laws And Notice Of Hearing” (the “Show Cause Order”). See Exhibit A. [All of

the referenced exhibits attached hereto are authenticated by the attached declaration

testimony of John N. Tokunaga.]

Respondent Kaiama was personally served with the Show Cause Order on

February 1, 2018. as reflected by the filed Return and Acknowledgment of Service.

See Exhibit B.

Respondent Sai was personally served with the Show Cause Order on

February 6, 2018, as reflected by the filed Return and Acknowledgment of Service.

See Exhibit C.

2
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:
569

Despite diligent efforts to serve Respondent Dradi, Dradi has yet to be

personally served. On March 23. 2018, OCP moved ex parte and was granted

authority to serve Dradi by publication. Notice to Dradi is now being published, and

pursuant to the summons, Dradi has been ordered to appear at a continued show

cause hearing set for June 6, 2018. Timely remand might enable OCP to keep that

date.

What transpired between the Respondents and the Defendants constitutes

mortgage rescue fraud. Respondents contracted with Defendants to have the

foreclosure case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sai, who claims

to be an expert on sovereignty issues, maintains that the continued existence of the

Kingdom of Hawai‘i means that the State of Hawai‘i does not exist. According to

Sai, there are no state laws, and there are no state courts. Sai claims to know all of

this first-hand because Sai claims to be an acting minister/diplomat for the Kingdom,

and Kaiama is supposedly the Kingdom’s acting attorney general.

What happened to the Defendants has happened all too frequently in Hawai‘i.

Defendants paid Respondents $7,250 in advance fees for their services, the motion

to dismiss was denied faster than one can say “the Kingdom of Hawai‘i continues to

exist,” and when the smoke clears and the dust settles, the Defendants are back in

court for a hearing on the Plaintiff’s motion to confirm the sale and evict the

Defendants. At this point, the Defendants have essentially squandered any

3
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:
570

meaningful chance they had to save their property, their cash on hand all went to the

Respondents for a bogus foreclosure defense service that conferred no benefit, and

the Respondents’ services forced the Plaintiff to incur attorneys’ fees, which get

added to the Plaintiff’s claim and charged to the Defendants. To remedy the

unlawful conduct, OCP intervened in the state court case because the wrongdoing

played out before the state court.

Respondents were on notice of their wrongdoing by the Show Cause Order,

which provides in pertinent part:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the State of Hawaii Office of

Consumer Protection (“OCP”) has alleged that because Tala Raymond
Fonoti and Willadean Lehuanani Grace (the “Defendant homeowners”
in this foreclosure case) were “distressed property owners“ by virtue
of this foreclosure action, and as such. the Defendant homeowners
were entitled to the protections of Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”)
Chapter 480E.

OCP has further alleged that the three of you (collectively

“Respondents”) provided services to the Defendant homeowners in
this foreclosure case.
OCP has further alleged that Respondent Rose Dradi (“Dradi”)
and Respondent David Keanu Sai (“Sai”) were subject to the
requirements and prohibitions applicable to distressed property
consultants under HRS Chapter 480E.

OCP has further alleged that Respondent Dexter Kaiama

(“Kaiama”) was subject to the requirements and prohibitions
applicable to attorneys under HRS Chapter 480E.

OCP has further alleged that the manner in which Respondents’

services were provided to the Defendant homeowners violated
applicable provisions of HRS Chapter 480E, as well as the prohibition

4
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:
571

of unfair or deceptive acts or practices set forth in HRS § 480–2(a).

More particularly, OCP has alleged that:

1. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-3 by failing to use a written contract to fully disclose all
of the services they were to perform.

2. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-3 by failing to provide the homeowners with written
notification of their legal right to cancel the Respondents’ services at
any time.

3. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(9) by collecting money for their services in
advance.

4. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(2)(A) by misrepresenting and overstating the
benefits of their services, as Respondents failed to save the
homeowners’ home or have the case dismissed on jurisdictional
grounds.

5. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(3) by having assisted the homeowners with the
preparation, filing and/or presentation of a motion to dismiss the
foreclosure based on Hawaiian sovereignty, representing both
explicitly and implicitly that the Court lacked jurisdiction and the
foreclosure case would be dismissed, without having competent and
reliable evidence to substantiate those claims.

6. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(4) by concealing from the homeowners the fact that
the homeowners were paying for an oft-rejected Hawaiian sovereignty
argument.

7. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(2)(G) by representing to the homeowners that they
had completed their services.

5
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:
572

8. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(2)(F) by concealing from the homeowners their
entitlement to a refund of all of the money paid them by the
homeowners.

9. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(2)(G) by representing to the homeowners that they
had the right to retain the money paid them by the homeowners.

10. Respondent Dradi has acted in violation of HRS § 480E-

10(a)(2)(K) by misrepresenting to the homeowners the total cost of the
Respondents’ services.

11. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-9.5 by failing to create and retain requisite records.

12. Respondents Dradi and Sai have acted in violation of

HRS § 480E-10(a)(10) by charging the homeowners fees in excess of
the legal limit. 1

13. Respondent Kaiama has acted in violation of HRS §

480E-15(1) by failing to use a written contract to fully disclose all of
the services he was to perform.

14. Respondent Kaiama has acted in violation of HRS §

480E-15(4) by not having fully performed, as that term is defined in
HRS § 480E-2, and at a time when he has clearly abandoned making
any further effort to save the homeowners’ property from foreclosure,
nevertheless retaining money that rightfully belongs to the
homeowners, compounded by the fact that his services conferred no
benefit upon the homeowners in the absence of a determination from
this Court to the contrary.

1
Exhibit D to the attached Declaration of Counsel shows the homeowners’ monthly
mortgage payment during the applicable time period to be $2,146.69, and thus even
legitimate distressed property consultants who sought compensation only after they
had fully performed could not request more than $4,293.38. [The footnote is as it
appears in the Show Cause Order.]
6
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:
573

15. Respondents Dradi and Sai have committed numerous

violations of HRS § 480-2(a), by virtue of HRS § 480E-11, as each
violation of HRS Chapter 480E constitutes a per se violation of HRS
§ 480-2(a).

16. Respondent Kaiama has violated HRS § 480-2(a), by

virtue of HRS § 480E-11, as each violation of HRS Chapter 480E
constitutes a per se violation of HRS § 480-2(a).

17. Respondent Kaiama has committed numerous additional

violations of HRS § 480-2(a), by associating himself with distressed
property consultants in providing assistance to the homeowners, when
he knew or should have known that Dradi and Sai were violating HRS
Chapter 480E by acting as they did, compounded by Kaiama’s failure
to disclose those violations of the Defendant homeowners.

See Show Cause Order, Exhibit A, pp. 2-5.

In addition to having been put on notice of their alleged wrongdoing,

Respondents were also put on notice of the remedial relief sought by OCP:

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in the event one or

more of you fail to show cause why the Court should not find that one
or more of the foregoing alleged violations have occurred, the Court
may enter remedial relief against you without further notice and without
further hearing, which relief may include declaratory relief, restitution,
fines and penalties, permanent injunctive relief and disgorgement, and
such additional relief as may the Court may determine to be
appropriate.

See Show Cause Order, Exhibit A, p. 6.

In response to the Show Cause Order and in preparation for the Show Cause

Hearing, Respondent Kaiama: (i) on February 20, 2018, filed his written response to

the Show Cause Order, supported by his declaration testimony, (ii) on February 21,

7
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:
574

2018, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (iii) on

February 28, 2018, appeared at the Show Cause Hearing, (iv) on or before March 2,

2018, hired Mr. Sink as his co-counsel, as reflected in the notice of appearance of

co-counsel filed March 2, 2018, (v) on March 7, 2018 filed a supplemental brief in

response to the Show Cause Order, supported by his declaration testimony (vi) on

March 12, 2018, filed a reply brief on his motion to dismiss and on the Show Cause

Order, supported by his declaration testimony, (vii) on March 14, 2018, appeared

with his co-counsel at the continued Show Cause Hearing, (viii) on March 22, 2018,

filed a supplemental reply brief on the Show Cause Order, supported by his

declaration testimony, (ix) on March 23, 2018, filed a notice of taking deposition

upon oral examination, (x) on March 23, 2018, filed a subpoena for the oral

deposition of Gary Okuda, (xi) on March 27, 2018, filed his witness list and exhibit

list, (xii) on March 27, 2018, served his exhibit binder for the evidentiary hearing,

consisting of exhibits KD-1 through KD-15, and (xiii) on March 28, 2018, conducted

the oral deposition of Gary Okuda.

In response to the Show Cause Order and in preparation for the Show Cause

Hearing, Respondent Sai: (i) on February 5, 2018, hand-delivered to OCP a letter he

had authored addressed to OCP expressing his views on the continued existence of

the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, (ii) on February 26, 2018, filed his joinder to Kaiama’s

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (iii) on February 28, 2018,

8
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:
575

appeared at the Show Cause Hearing, (iv) on March 5, 2018, filed his memorandum

in support of the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, supported

by his declaration testimony, (v) on or before March 13, 2018, hired Mr. Laudig as

his counsel, (vi) on March 13, 2018 filed a motion to continue the Show Cause

Hearing to allow for time to file a supplemental brief to be filed by March 27, 2018,

(vii) on March 13, 2018 filed a notice of appearance of counsel, (viii) on March 14,

2018, appeared with his counsel at the continued Show Cause Hearing, and (ix) on

March 27, 2018, filed a supplemental memorandum as to both dismissal and the

Show Cause Order, supported by his declaration testimony.

When Sai filed his Notice of Removal herein on March 27, 2018, an

evidentiary hearing was scheduled to take place in state court on April 6, 2018, at

which Respondents Sai and Kaiama had been ordered to appear.

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS RE: JURISDICTION,

REMOVAL AND REMAND

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any

case before the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of

Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir.1988). Federal courts are courts of

limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by federal law.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d

391 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136–37, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117

L.Ed.2d 280 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the
9
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:
576

contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1519

(9th Cir.1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546,

106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986)).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time

during the proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93

F.3d 593, 594–95 (9th Cir.1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation

to address sua sponte whether [it] has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v.

California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.1999). It is the obligation of the district

court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global

Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004). Without

jurisdiction, the district court cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief.

See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on federal courts either through federal

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or through diversity jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th

Cir.2005).

Removal of a civil action from state court to the appropriate federal district

court is permissible if the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction

10
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:
577

over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A defendant who invokes the federal court's

removal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Washington

v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2011). Since federal district

courts are “of limited jurisdiction,” it is “presumed that a cause of action lies outside

of this limited jurisdiction” until the contrary has been established by the party

asserting jurisdiction. See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770,

2017 WL 6601872, at *2 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

A motion to remand may be brought to challenge the removal of an action

from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Courts construe the removal statute

strictly against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

“Any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.” Id.

III. ARGUMENT

A. OCP Objects to the Notice of Removal as Untimely.

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding must be filed within

thirty (30) days after the receipt by the Respondents, through service or otherwise,

of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such

action or proceeding is based. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

The “initial pleading” in this matter is the Show Cause Order. See Exhibit A.

The Show Cause Order was personally served upon Kaiama on February 1, 2018.

11
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:
578

See Exhibit B. The Show Cause Order was personally served upon Sai on February

6, 2018. See Exhibit C.

If there was a legitimate basis for removal (and as is shown below, there was

no basis), Sai had until March 8, 2018 to file his notice of removal. Sai’s notice of

removal filed March 27, 2018 was after his thirty-day right to seek removal had

expired.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the time limits in § 1446(b) are mandatory and

that “‘a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal.’” Smith v. Mylan Inc.,

761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615

F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980)); Palmeira v. CIT Bank, N.A., No. 17-00275 ACK-

RLP, 2017 WL 4797515, at *5 (D. Haw. October 24, 2017).

As Sai failed to remove the case within thirty days, any right to removal has

been waived, and the untimely attempt at removal is improper and ineffective.

Remand is in order.

B. OCP Objects to the Consent to Removal as Untimely.

Kaiama’s consent to removal of the action is also required to be filed within

that same thirty (30) day period for Sai’s notice of removal. Palmeira v. CIT Bank,

N.A., No. 17-00275 ACK-RLP, 2017 WL 4797515, at *5 (D. Haw. October 24,

2017) (ordering remand after concluding “that consent must be filed within the 30-

12
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:
579

day period for removal to be timely, not within 30 days of when the notice of removal

was filed.”).

As Kaiama failed to consent to removal within thirty days, any right to consent

to removal has been waived, and the untimely attempt to consent to removal is

improper and ineffective. Remand is in order.

C. Any Right to Remove was Waived by the Respondents’ Conduct.

As shown above, Kaiama took no less than thirteen (13) different actions in

the state court action before the belated removal, and Sai no less than nine (9). Sai’s

conduct is inconsistent with removal, and constitutes a waiver of any right to

remove. A defendant waives its right to remove by proceeding to defend the action

in state court or otherwise invoking the process of the state court. Brown v. Demco,

Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Schell v. Food Mach. Corp., 87 F.2d

385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 679, 57 S.Ct. 670, 81 L.Ed. 883 (1937)).

D. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Purely State Law Claims.

Mortgage rescue fraud is made unlawful under both federal law (Mortgage

Assistance Relief Service Rule, 12 C.F.R. Part 1015 (“MARS Rule”)) and state law

(HRS Chapter 480E), and if OCP had sought relief under both federal and state law,

the Court would have had supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims. Brady

v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.1995); Maizner v. Dep't of Educ., 405 F.Supp.2d

1225, 1241 (D.Haw.2005). OCP did not seek relief under the MARS Rule, however,

13
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:
580

opting instead to pursue relief solely under state law. The well-pleaded complaint

rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim, able to avoid federal jurisdiction by

relying exclusively on state law. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

1992). “[T]he plaintiff is the ‘master’ of her case, and if she can maintain her claims

on both state and federal grounds, she may ignore the federal question, assert only

state claims, and defeat removal.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th

Cir.1996).

OCP was within its right to proceed only on its state law claims, which defeats

removal. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). In the absence of

claims under federal law, the Court lacks jurisdiction of the state law claims.

Remand is in order.

E. Sai’s Claim of Diplomatic Immunity is Without Merit.

Sai’s cover sheet to removal indicates that there is no diversity in this case,

and that the alleged basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is a federal question involving

a citizen or subject of a foreign country. See Dkt No.1-2. The Notice of Removal

indicates Sai is a “foreign diplomat” by virtue of having “served as Minister of the

Interior and Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom.” See Dkt No.1-1, p.3, ¶6. This claim

is absurd. Sai is not entitled to diplomatic immunity.

The common law doctrine of head-of-state immunity is available where the

United States government has officially recognized (i) the legitimacy of a foreign

14
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:
581

government, (ii) a particular individual’s authority to serve in a representative

capacity of that government, and (iii) the individual is not engaging in conduct

excepted from immunity. See, e.g., Gomes v. ANGOP, Angola Press Agency, 2012

WL 3637453, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Gomes v. ANGOP,

541 Fed.Appx. 141 (2d Cir. 2013) (affording President Jose Eduardo dos Santos

diplomatic immunity as Angola's head-of-state where it was undisputed that “the

United States formally recognized both the Government of Angola and President

Jose Eduardo dos Santos as Angola's head-of-state.”). The doctrine has no

application to the facts of this case.

1. The United States Does Not Recognize the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.

Many attempts have been made in Hawai‘i by people seeking some sort of

immunity from state laws based on Sai’s theory that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i

continues to exist, and as a result, there is no shortage of case law rejecting the notion

that sovereignty excuses compliance with the laws passed by the State of Hawai‘i.

Courts considering the issue have consistently and resoundingly rejected claims

premised on the asserted sovereignty of the laws of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, finding

that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i is no longer recognized as a sovereign state by either

the federal government or by the State of Hawai‘i. See State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i

219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Haw.App.1994); accord State v. French, 77 Hawai‘i

222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 649 (Haw.App.1994) ( “[P]resently there is no factual (or

15
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:
582

legal) basis for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in

accordance with recognized attributes of a state's sovereign nature”) (quotations

omitted).

The argument has also been rejected by the Ninth Circuit on repeated

occasions. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1993)

(holding that the Hawai‘i district court has jurisdiction over Hawai‘i residents

claiming they are citizens of the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawai‘i); Wang Foong v.

United States, 69 F.2d 681, 682 (9th Cir.1934).

The sovereignty argument has likewise failed in the United States District

Court for the District of Hawaii. See Naehu v. Hawai‘i, Civil No. 01–00579

SOM/KSC, slip op. (D.Haw. Sept. 6, 2001) (holding that Hawai‘i traffic laws apply

to persons claiming to be members of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i); Uy v. Wells Fargo,

2011 WL 1235590 (D.Haw. 2011).

Uy is of particular note, because there the court rejected Sai’s own supposed

expert opinions:

FN16. Plaintiff spends three pages of his Rule 56(d) argument

summarizing a July 31, 2010 “Expert Opinion on the Continuity of the
Hawaiian Kingdom as a State” (“Expert Opinion Letter”). Opp'n at 13–
16. The Expert Opinion Letter and the curriculum vitae of its author,
Dr. David Keanu Sai, are attached to Plaintiff's Opposition. Opp'n Ex.
A. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Sai's research shows that “all transfers of
title since 1873 (done through the Hawaii Revised Statutes and Bureau
of Conveyances, not notarized by notaries authorized pursuant to
Hawaii Kingdom law) are invalid.” Opp'n at 14. Plaintiff's reliance on
[Sai’s opinion] is misplaced. The Ninth Circuit, this Court, and the
16
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:
583

Hawai‘i state courts have rejected similar arguments based on the

continued sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. See Baker v.
Stehura, Civ. No. 09–00615 ACK–BMK, 2010 WL 3528987, at *4–5
(D.Haw. Sep. 8, 2010) (discussing authorities supporting the rejection
of the “argu[ment] that [a] foreclosure action [was] voidable because
Hawai‘i courts do not have jurisdiction over [the plaintiffs] as residents
of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i”).

Uy v. Wells Fargo, 2011 WL 1235590, at *5 n16 (D.Haw. 2011).

Courts considering the issue as to whether the Kingdom of Hawai‘i continues

to exist have determined the issue to be a “nonjusticiable political question” for

which the court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” See, e.g., Yellen v. U.S., 2014

WL 2532460, at *1 (D.Haw. June 5, 2014):

State Defendants argue that this action raises a nonjusticiable political

question—i.e., whether the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was
wrongful such that Hawai‘i is not a valid state of the United States. The
court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Although Sai would have the world think of him as an expert, in reality Sai is

merely using his views on sovereignty to exploit people for his own personal gain,

as Sai did with the Defendants in the state court foreclosure matter. Many of the

sovereignty cases reject arguments attributable to Sai. For example, in State v.

Waikiki, 138 Hawai‘i 142, 377 P.3d 1060 (App. 2016), where the defendant

appealed a conviction for failing to register to sell securities. “Waikiki’s opening

brief is an article dated August 4, 2013, written by David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., and

titled `The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the Acting

Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.’ The article includes no reference to

17
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:
584

Waikiki's case or appeal.” Id. at n.2. In upholding the defendant’s conviction, the

Intermediate Court of Appeals concluded as follows:

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and having given due consideration to the arguments and the
issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case
law, we conclude Waikiki's appeal is without merit.

We have previously rejected arguments based on claims that the State

of Hawai‘i does not have jurisdiction over citizens of the Kingdom of
Hawai‘i, or that the State of Hawai‘i is an illegitimate government. See
State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Hawai‘i 43, 55, 101 P.3d 652, 664
(App.2004), aff'd, 106 Hawai‘i 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004). The Hawai‘i
Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that “‘whatever may be said
regarding the lawfulness of its origins, ‘the State of Hawai‘i is now, a
lawful government.’ Individuals claiming to be citizens of the
Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the
State's laws.” State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai‘i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385
(2013) (internal citation, brackets and ellipses omitted) (quoting
Fergerstrom, 106 Hawai‘i at 55, 101 P.3d at 664). Waikiki is not
exempt from the laws of the State of Hawai‘i regulating securities, and
we decline to overturn his conviction.

Id.

Not only are Sai’s arguments repeatedly rejected by the courts, they are found

to be without merit. See, e.g., Algal Partners, L..P. v. Santos, No. CIV. 13-00562

LEK, 2014 WL 1653084, at *2 (D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2014) (noting first that “Defendant

argues, by citing lengthy materials authored by David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., that ‘the

Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and is under a prolonged and illegal

occupation by the United States[,]’” and further noting “courts have rejected these

same arguments made by Dr. Sai in other cases[,]” citing Sai v. Clinton, 778

18
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:
585

F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.), aff'd sub nom. Sai v. Obama, No. 11–5142, 2011 WL

4917030 (D.C.Cir. Sept. 26, 2011); First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452,

303 P.3d 1229 (Ct. App. 2013) (finding upon de novo review the appeal to be

“without merit,” noting “[o]ur appellate courts have repeatedly held that claims

involving the applicability of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i laws are without merit.”);

Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), No. CIV. 11-00407 JMS/RL, 2011 WL

2534348, at *3 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) (dismissing a complaint “as legally

frivolous and failing to confer jurisdiction on this court” where the allegations were

“based on the assertion that Hawai‘i is not a state of the United States.”); Kupihea

v. United States, No. CIV. 09-00311SOMKSC, 2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw.

July 10, 2009) (dismissing as “patently frivolous” a complaint based on the plaintff’s

“theory that he should be released from prison because he is a member of the

Kingdom of Hawai‘i.”).

Because the United States government does not officially recognize the

continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, Sai’s claim for diplomatic immunity

– and removal to federal court – necessarily fails. LaSalle Bank Natl. Assoc. v.

Johnson, No. 3:12–1030, 2012 WL 6628940, at *2 (M.D.Tenn. Nov.29, 2012)

(refusing to grant immunity to a claimed diplomat of the Shaykamaxum Atlanexem

Republic where there was no indication that such a government exists or is

recognized by the United States).

19
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:
586

2. The United States Does Not Recognize Sai as Being an

Authorized Representative of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.

The fact that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i is not recognized by the United States

spares the Court from having to consider the ludicrous assertions made to this Court

that Sai is the “Minister of the Interior and Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom” and

Kaiama is the Kingdom’s acting attorney general. Sai’s claim for diplomatic

immunity must be denied. It bears noting, however, that Sai’s claim to the Kingdom

is but one of many. As reported by Honolulu Magazine in November 2009, Sai is

but one of “[m]ore than 10 factions [that] currently claim to be the legitimate

government of the Hawaiian kingdom.” Michael Keany, “Contenders to the

Throne,” Honolulu Magazine, November 2009. See Exhibit D, at p.1.

Having been interviewed for and quoted in the article, Sai’s claim is described

as that of overseer of a transitional government seeking to have the United States

create a military government that will enforce Hawaiian kingdom laws, Sai is

described as “living a reality that’s not necessarily recognized by the rest of the

world.” See Exhibit D, at p.1. That is precisely why remand is in order. Diplomatic

immunity is not available to someone “living a reality that’s not necessarily

recognized by the rest of the world.” Diplomatic immunity turns on whether the

United States recognizes the foreign government and an individual serving as a duly

authorized representative of that government. Here there is no recognition,

diplomatic immunity fails, and remand is in order.

20
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:
587

3. Sai’s Mortgage Relief Scam is Outside the Scope of Immunity.

In January of 2014, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that the repeated

unsuccessful use of sovereignty by Sai and Kaiama as a foreclosure defense was

considered by some to be both a scam and a fraud, “[w]hen not even advocates of

the kingdom defense can cite a single case in which a homeowner ultimately

prevailed.” Rob Perez, “Kingdom Still In Place Courts Told,” Honolulu Star-

Advertiser, January 13, 2014. See Exhibit E. There were no victories as of 2014,

and there have been none since. This is a con, and Respondents must be stopped

before more homeowners throw their money away only to end up like the

Defendants, having to attend a hearing in fear the court will confirm the sale of

Defendants’ home and order their eviction.

This conduct is illegal. Defendants were in foreclosure as of March 3, 2015.

See Exhibit F, p.2. Sai contracted with Defendants on April 26, 2015. See Exhibit

G. Sai’s contract requires the Defendants to pay him in advance, which is prohibited

by law (HRS § 480E-10(a)(9)) and which constitutes a felony (HRS § 480E-12). Sai

did receive the payments from the Defendants and deposited them into his personal

bank account. See Exhibit H. Sai’s monthly bank statements confirm his having

received those monies. See Exhibit I.

Sai’s illegal conduct carries both civil and criminal ramifications, and that

fact is of critical importance because assuming Sai could do the impossible and make

21
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:
588

a case that the United States officially recognizes both the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and

Sai’s role as authorized representative of the Kingdom, Sai’s plea for immunity

would nevertheless fail because the United States does not offer immunity to official

diplomats acting outside their official capacity to engage in fraud for their own

personal gain.

Sai claims diplomatic immunity under 22 U.S.C. § 254d. See Dkt No. 1-1,

p.168. The cited authority does not serve to give Sai immunity for his role in the

mortgage rescue scam used to victimize consumers like the Defendants.

The money paid by the Defendants was deposited by Sai into his personal

bank account. See Exhibit H (deposit slips made out to deposit the Defendants’

checks into Sai’s personal account, along with the Defendants’ checks) and Exhibit

I (monthly statements showing the Defendants’ checks were deposited into Sai’s

personal account). At all times Sai was acting for his own personal gain, not in some

official capacity on behalf of an officially recognized foreign government.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (“VCDR”) and the

Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (“DRA”), 22 U.S.C. § 254d, a diplomat is

expressly prohibited from engaging in any professional or commercial activity for

personal profit. VCDR, Article 42. Where a diplomat does engage in professional

or commercial activity for personal profit, he does so without immunity:

22
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:
589

A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction

of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and
administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:

* * * * *

(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity

exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his
official functions.

VCDR, Article 31(c).

Sai contracted with consumers in his individual capacity, demanded and

received advance payments in violation of both state and federal consumer

protection laws, and deposited those monies into his personal account. Under state

law, Sai’s conduct constitutes a felony (see HRS §§ 480E-10(a)(9) and 480E-12),

and Sai’s criminal wrongdoing has been referred to the proper criminal authorities

for investigation. In the meantime, OCP intends to pursue its civil remedies,

including permanent injunctive relief in an effort to end Sai’s exploitation of

homeowners looking for legitimate ways to deal with foreclosure.

It might also be noted that in the United States and elsewhere, the attainment

of foreign policy objectives depends substantially on the confidence of the public

(both locally and abroad) in the individuals selected to serve. Candidates are

therefore required to meet the highest standards of conduct, including an especially

high degree of integrity, reliability, and prudence. A candidate interested is

representing the United States, for example, must be found suitable by the Suitability

23
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:
590

Review Panel. Sai’s criminal record for first degree theft (see Exhibit J), coupled

with Sai’s active involvement mortgage rescue fraud now being investigated by the

criminal authorities, constituting many more felonies, will make him ineligible to

serve in a representative capacity should the day even come when the United States

officially recognizes the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.

F. Removal Violated Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P.

Removal was not done in accordance with Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P, and

accordingly, OCP respectfully requests that the Court so find. Kaiama’s consent to

removal should similarly be found to have been done in violation of Rule 11.

The procedure for removal requires that the notice of removal be “signed

pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

An attorney licensed to practice law in Hawai‘i cannot make a claim that the

Kingdom of Hawai‘i continues to exist, and that the State of Hawai‘i does not exist,

and satisfy Rule 11. There is no basis for anyone to believe Sai is entitled to

diplomatic immunity under the circumstances of this case, when the Respondents

illegally collected from the Defendants $7,250 for a motion to dismiss (based on the

alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction supposedly attributable to the continued

existence of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i) which was denied. When OCP sought to have

the Respondents take accountability for their actions, Sai responded to OCP with a

24
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:
591

letter claiming the presiding state court judge was to blame, accusing the judge of

having committed an international crime:

The presiding judge in these proceedings denied the motion to dismiss

after the attorneys for the plaintiff provided no evidence rebutting the
evidence provided for in the Fonoti's motion to dismiss. This denial
constituted an international crime, committed against the Fonoti's and
the pillaging of their property, by a court without any lawful existence
in Hawai`i. Any action or judgment stemming from an illegal
proceeding is illegal.

See Exhibit K.

Sai’s irrational and fanatical criticism of the state court judge is a view shared

by Kaiama, for which Kaiama was sanctioned by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

See Exhibit L.

As removal was not sought in accordance with Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P, the

Court should so find, in part to enable the case to be remanded without hearing and

further delay, and in part so that OCP has some means to recoup the costs of

publishing the notice of continued hearing on the Show Cause Order as to

Respondent Dradi in the event jurisdiction over the case is not returned to the state

court in time for the hearing now scheduled for June 6, 2018.

G. Immediate Remand is Sought.

Removal of this action was clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable and without

legal foundation, and brought for the improper purpose of avoiding the evidentiary

hearing set for April 6, 2018. At OCP’s request, Sai and Kaiama were ordered to

25
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:
592

appear for the hearing, and both Sai and Kaiama were on OCP’s witness list to be

called to testify as to their illegal conduct. By improperly removing the case,

Respondents bought themselves some time, but the case should be remanded as

quickly as possible, so that OCP can resume its effort to permanently enjoin

Respondents from targeting homeowners desperate to save their homes from

foreclosure. Respondents’ predatory scheme, in which Sai’s supposed expertise on

Hawaiian sovereignty issues is packaged as part of a motion to dismiss, has been

shown to be of no benefit. Respondents are victimizing consumers. No judge

presiding over a foreclosure case has yet to be convinced that the case must be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the continued existence

of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, and yet Sai keeps offering his services and illegally

collecting his fees in advance.

This case should not remain in federal court for a second longer. The Court

does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Where removal was made in the absence

of any claim conferring subject matter jurisdiction on the court, the matter may be

dismissed sua sponte without delay. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543, 94 S.Ct.

1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (acknowledging that a claim may be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction if it is “so insubstantial, implausible, ... or otherwise completely

devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the

District Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939

26
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:
593

(1946) (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where

it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and so patently without merit as to justify

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th

Cir.1984) (holding that even “[a] paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous' does

not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction ... and may be dismissed sua sponte

before service of process.”).

To help remedy the prejudice caused by the baseless removal, OCP

respectfully requests that the Court find this matter suitable for disposition without

a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United

States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, and proceed to enter its Findings and

Recommendation to Grant OCP’s Motion for Order Remanding Action to State

Court.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 5, 2018.

/s/ James F. Evers

JAMES F. EVERS
Attorney for Movant
State of Hawai‘i Office of Consumer Protection

27
Case 1:18-cv-00118-KJM-NONE Document 7-1 Filed 04/05/18 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:
594

Certificate of Compliance with Word Limitations

The foregoing memorandum does not contain more than 30 pages, in

compliance with LR 7.5(a), and does not contain more than 9,000 words, in

compliance with the LR 7.5(b).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 5, 2018.

/s/ James F. Evers

JAMES F. EVERS
Attorney for Movant
State of Hawai‘i Office of Consumer Protection

28