Court's Job “We must distinguish between the sound certainty and the sham, between what is gold and what is tinsel; and then, when certainty is attained, we must remember that it is not the only good, that we can buy it at too high a price.” ~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo

1. High Court Rejects Media Complaint About Police Commission Secrecy
The legal challenge was made to ensure that the public has access to hearings for Honolulu cops who want taxpayer help
By Chad Blair, Honolulu Civil Beat
October 24, 2017
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/10/high-court-rejects-media-complaint-about-police-commission-secrecy/
Hawaii Supreme Court Order October 24, 2017
https://www.slideshare.net/civilbeat/hawaii-supreme-court-opinion-oct-24-2017
__________________
Honolulu Civil Beat and Honolulu Star-Advertiser
FILED
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
NOT
A Complaint
______________________
The Hawaii Supreme Court DENIED, not rejected as reported, the Petition for
Writ of Mandamus fled by the Honolulu Civil Beat and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser as
Petitioners did not meet their BURDEN OF PROOF entitling Petitioners to relief.
The burden of proof required for an action of Mandamus is akin to scaling the
Summit of Mt. Everest. The climb is essentially vertical.
Words of Encouragement
“Technique and ability alone do not get you to the top; it is the willpower that is
the most important. This willpower you cannot buy with money or be given by
others .. it rises from your heart.”
~ Junko Tabei, Mountaineer. First woman to reach the summit of Mount Everest.
First woman to ascend all Seven Summits by climbing the highest peak on every
continent.

2. HASEGAWA v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
No. SCPW-12-0000671
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/opin_ord/sct/2012/oct/SCPW-12-0000797ord.pdf
ORDER
By e-mail dated July 12, 2012, which we treat as a petition for a writ of mandamus,
petitioner Clifton Hasegawa asks this court to direct the Ofce of Disciplinary Counsel
to proceed with an investigation into the complaints he fled against David M. Louie,
John M. Molay, Mark J. Bennett and Caron (misspelled "Coron") Inagaki.
A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition will not issue unless a petitioner demonstrates
a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of other means to redress adequately
the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999). Mandamus relief is available to compel an ofcial to
perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual's claim is clear
and certain, the ofcial's duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from
doubt, and no other remedy is available. In re Disciplinary Bd., 94 Hawai'i 363, 368,
371, 984 P.2d 688, 693, 695 (1999) (citations omitted). Inasmuch as disciplinary
counsel has authority to investigate and dismiss matters involving alleged misconduct
called to his or her attention, which actions are more than ministerial, see RSCH Rule
2.6(b)(2) and (3); In re Disciplinary Bd., 94 Hawai'i at 368, 371, 984 P.2d 688 at 693,
695, Hasegawa fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition
for a writ of mandamus without payment of the fling fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 8, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack