Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue

1
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
YONG NAM FRYER
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI. 96701
Telephone: (808) 688-7806
Pro-Se Defendant(s)
Pro-Se Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JHC
ASSOCIATION, (Other Civil Action)
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM
PLAINTIFF(S) MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION (MIO) TO PLAINTIFF(S)/
COUNTER-CLAIM DEFENDANT(S)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
VS, ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS COUNTER-
CLAIMS’ FILED ON NOV. 13TH
, 2018;
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES OPPOSITION; AFFIDAVIT OF ANGELA
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50 KAAIHUE; AFFIDAVIT OF YONG NAM
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE FRYER; EXHIBITS 1-12; C/S
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50;
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50
Defendants,
__________________________________________
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50;
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50
Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s),
VS.,
Judge: Hon. J. Crabtree
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY Hearing Date: Dec. 12th
, 2018
ASSOCIATION, Time: 9:30 A.M.
Counter-Claim Defendants, Trial Date: Jan. 7th
, 2019
Judge: Honorable J. Crabtree
__________________________________________

2
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CASE HISTORY (Bernard Bays Law Firm, Exhibit 1) . . . . . . Pg. 4
2. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
ANGELA KAAIHUE ON OCT. 23RD
, 2013, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL
CONDUCT, UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL . . . . . . Pg. 19
YONG FRYER ON AUG. 13TH
, 2014, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL CONDUCT,
UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL . . . . . . Pg. 19
4. 10TH
, 11TH
, & 12TH
, MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY
PLAINTIFF NECA . . . . . . Pg. 19
5. RULES OF THE HRCP, 1; 12, 55, 60, not limited to those few stated HRCP Pg. 20
6. PLAINTIFF’S STATE OF MIND: WILLFULL NEGLECT, INTENTIONAL
NEGLECT TO FRAUD, DECEIVE, AND MISLEAD THE COURTS, AND THE
DEFENDANTS. FAULT BY PLAINTIFF’S OWN ADMISSIONS. . . . . . Pg. 20
7. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVE JURISDICTION, STATE A CLAIM, AND
FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE FULL DISCOVERY . . . . . Pg. 20
8. DEFAULT-JUDGMENT- INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT . . . . . Pg. 20
9. PLAINTIFF’S ARE PREJUDICED- . . . . . Pg. 20
10. ESTIMATED DAMAGES: $117 MILLION, FILED APRIL 18TH
, 2018 Pg. 21
11. CONCLUSION . . . . . Pg. 21

3
DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE AND
YONG FRYER MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NECA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
ANSWER DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) (FILED OCT. 23RD
, 2013 &
AUG. 13TH
, 2014) COUNTER-CLAIMS’ FILED ON NOV. 13TH
, 2018
COMES NOW Petitioner(s), ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE and YONG NAM FRYER, by Pro-
Se Defendant(s)/Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s), respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an
Order DENYING NECA’s Motion for Leave to Answer Counter-Claim’s filed on Oct. 23,
2013, and Aug. 13th
, 2014. , in favor for “Defendant(s)/Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s) dismissing
Plaintiff’s motions in it’s entirety filed on Nov. 13th
2018.
1. CASE HISTORY- Bernard Bays Law Firm (Exhibit 1)
This Memorandum in Opposition is brought pursuant to Rules 1, 6(b), 7, 7(f), 12(a), 17,
54, 55(a), 55(b), and 56, 60 of the Hawaii rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7, 7(f), of the Rules
of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai’I, and is supported by the attached Memorandum,
Declarations, Exhibits, Transcripts, Orders, the numerous pleadings filed in this matter, and
includes Defendant(s)/Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s) Request for Right of Entry and Order of Default
Judgment against Newtown Estates Community Association filed on July 23rd
, 2018, filed
herein, as well as the Memorandum in Support of Motion and all supporting documents thereto.
This Memorandum in Opposition is made pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the Land Court of
the State of Hawaii, Hawaii Revised Statutes 501-52 and -53, and 501-196, Rules 56 and 81 of
the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petition, and the Memorandum in Opposition, and the
Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Counsel with Exhibits “1-10”, attached hereto,
and the records and files herein, and such oral argument and other evidence as may be
presented at the hearing on the Motion.

4
Despite a long lengthy litigation, and numerous motions for summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s
willfully neglected their answer to the Filed Counter-Complaint. Numerous Expert Attorneys
have serviced this case file, including but not limited to The Plaintiffs Attorneys (Na Lan, Milton
Matooka, Keith Eyrich, Katherine Caswell, Phillip Li, Matt Tsukuzaki, and Carol Rosenberg), and
to the Defendant’s Attorneys: ( Mark Kawata, Bernard Bays, Karin Holma, J.D. Ferry, Glenn
Yoshida, Anthony Fujii, Matthew Terrance Reviere),
Despite numerous Motions for Summary Judgment filed by NECA, Newtown Estates
Community Association has failed in each and every Motion for Summary Judgment, this is the
5th
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NECA’s including their sub-association attorneys
involving in multiple cases, Civil Court Cases: 17-1-1940: 13-1-2161, and this case LC
Case No. 17-1-2541. Filed Motion for Summary Judgments are as follows: 7/8/2014, 1/12/2015,
1/2/2018, 4/10/2018, ETC. ETC. and now in this Land Court filed Jan. 23, 2018. The same
issues continue to prevail, and no resolve to this issue in either of the cases by NECA’s eluding
of resolving the issue by claiming that the courts don’t have jurisdiction depending on which
court we are in- civil or land court at the time. If we are in Land Court, NECA claims Land Court
does not have jurisdiction. If we are in Civil Court, NECA claims Civil Court does not have
jurisdiction. Thus, the reason why the ongoing litigation which is to NECA’s advantage and
favor only. However, in the most recent hearing before Judge. Crabtree, he suggested that in
order to resolve these issues and move forward, that co-jurisdiction of the issues may be
shared.
This case is based on Plaintiff’s intentional motives to fraud Defendant’s out of
their fee-simple 82 acre land parcel, once thought was worthless unbuildable,
undevelopable mountainous terrain property. By frivolous claims, intentional
harassment, conspiracy, fraud, malice, and intentional manipulation and mockery of the
Civil Court Judiciary System and Process, owed by the Plaintiffs “NECA” for intentional
misconduct, ill-fated misery, “going on a witch-hunt, Conspiracy, Fraud, and failing to
follow their own written MDCCR’s by-laws, and failing to abide by the Hawaii State Laws
of Hawaii Revised Statue 421J, and failing to mediate.

5
 This is a clear example and portrayer of how NECA’s attorneys attempts
to fraud, misconstrue, and misinterpret orders of this court, and thus
misleads, intimidate, and conspire in attempts to cause Angela Sue
Kaaihue and Yong Fryer extreme emotional distress, bad faith, confuse
the courts, thus reaffirming Angela Sue Kaaihue’s Counter-Claims to
Count I-Bad Faith, Count IV-Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Count VI-
Punitive Damages, including the frivolous claim filed by Defendant Yong
Fryer. By eluding and misconstruing the laws of this court (HRS 421J,
MDCCRS’s), and State laws, NECA’s attorneys continue on a pattern of
harassing behavior, in attempts to exasperate attorney fees and expecting
the Defendants in this case to “foot their “enormous and outrageous” bill
by refusing to follow their own governing documents of the MDCCRS, and
the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 421J, made specifically for
Condominium Property Regimes(CPR), as Such is Newtown Estates
Community Association. (MDCCR’s 7.10)
o “ . . . all of the above would give any reasonable association and its
attorneys pause and good cause to reconsider their actions. . .
whether the property is part of Newtown Estates, and subject to
NECA’s governance, remains an open question, to which NECA’s
answer changes depending on the context.” Attorney John D. Ferry,
III (Bays, Lung, Rose, Holma, July 7, 2015).
 DEFENDANTS PARCAL IS NOT PART OF THE NEWTOWN ESTATES
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION JUSTIFIES COUNTERCLAIM: COUNT 1-
BAD FAITH- Although it appears to be a question whether or not “, the
NECA’s (“Plaintiffs”) MDCCR’s Article V, Section 7.10 of their governing
documents addresses it clearly, stating it is “reservation to Exclude”, and
has been reiterated dozens of times, but intentionally, purposely, and
blatantly ignored by the NECA’s attorneys. In addition, the Defendants
parcel has never been annexed, nor is it part of any sub-association.
Defendants seek declaratory relief to reconfirm such interpretation of the
MDCCR’s and to correct an obviously defective Title of Certificate which
has been petitioned before the Land Court. Being part of the association
or NOT, has been the issue since the beginning, and Newtown’s
attorneys, should have moved to clarify this issue, by means of a
Declaratory Relief from either Land Court, but they failed to do so. Despite
any need for a Declaratory Relief, it is however, stated in their own
MDCCR’s as described, and should gave them “good cause” to reconsider
their course of actions.
“MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the Master
Declaration. Declarant reserves the right to exclude from the operation and
effect of and the provisions contained in this Master Declaration. Declarant
reserves the right to exclude from the operation and effect of and the
provisions contained in this Master Declaration those development
increments, which are isolated and separated from the rest of the

6
NEWTOWN ESTATES , by it’s natural features, such as cliffs and streams,
so that such part of the common and recreational areas of NEWTOWN
ESTATES, including but not limited to any lots which may be constructed
and developed by Declarant within any Area identified as Area C
designated on the Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan, which is
separated from the rest of NEWTOWN ESTATES by Waimalu Stream and by
the cliffs next to it.
It is simply “illogical” to apply the same Governing Documents for Residential
homes, of the MDCCR’s to Angela Sue Kaaihue’s and Yong Nam Fryer’s property
which once was owned by the Declarant, Herbert Horita, OceanView Ventures, in which
the MDCCR’s rules, and policies are established for residential single family and town-
homes with concise and clear lot sizes, no greater than ¼ acre. The “Defendants”
vacant land parcel is 82-acres, includes a forest preservation, is located adjacent to the
Waimalu Stream, and is mostly mountainous, thus it is “isolated, and separated from the
rest of the Newtown Estates by ‘it’s natural features, such as cliffs and streams’”. The
“Defendants” property mostly consists of “overgrown grass, “protected trees”, caves,
natural resources, and historical archaeological significance and importance. This
“clause” in the MDCCR’s should give NECA’s attorneys “good cause” to reconsider their
course of action.
LETTER FROM NECA, DATED AUG. 6, 2010
“As your neighbor, it was important to provide your concerns with the
proper attention and effort. The Board of Directors as well as our legal counsel
was consulted so I could prove you with information that has been thoroughly
examined.
With respect to the encroachment issues, we reviewed the master
Declaration of Covenants (MDCCR) for Newtown Estates Community
Association (NECA), including the By-Laws and did not find any provision that
would obligate NECA to intervene . . . “ (EXHIBIT 4, NECA, Aug. 6, 2010)
Email FROM NECA, DATED OCT.5, 2009
“ . . . Since your property is NOT part of NECA, the Board’s time would not
be spent reviewing the plans you have to develop your property . . .
(EXHIBIT 5, NECA, OCT.5, 2009)
Email FROM NECA, DATED JULY 7th, 2009
“. . . I double checked Hawaiiana Management Company’s records (they
currently manage our association) and your parcel of land is not part of Newtown
Estates Community Association.. . .”
(EXHIBIT 6, NECA, JULY 7th, 2009)
Email FROM NECA, PRESIDENT, D. DEVANEY, DATED Nov. 25th
,
2011
“ Again from AK’s position, she may prevail because we told her she was
NOT a part of Newtown which was erroneous. We as a board cannot
overlook or ignore what is going on and we are responsible for the
situation because some board members such as Ross Lee said it is a

7
private matter, well I disagree with him then and now. We have not been
well served by Milton Matooka either, because at a recent board meeting
Alden reported that Motooka’s instructions was to refund her the $1,000
filing fee. So naturally I am confused and if I am confused, Angela is
confused. She invited NECA to attend a meeting with 7 attorneys but for
some reason we were told not to do that!. D. Devaney, President,
(EXHIBIT 10, NECA PRESIDENT, NOV. 25, 2011)
 NECA’S VIOLATIONS OF OVERGROWN GRASS AND HARASSMENT OF
LETTERS SENT TO DEFENDANTS JUSTIFIES COUNTERCLAIM: COUNT VI-
PUNITIVE ACTION.
For Newtown Estates to claim violations of overgrown grass along the Kaahele
Street, it would be unclear as to what the extent is that NECA’s expectations of the
“Defendants” are to cut and maintain their grassy field, classified Preservation. In
addition, this grassy area, is an area, that is documented DLNR- land document
recorded #3040093, Dated, Nov. 16, 1992, which serves as their basis for landscaping
by HERBERT HORITA REALTY. For 30+ years, this part of the Kaahele Street has
been landscaped by Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA), and now for
some “abrupt unknown” reason, they are demanding and seeking that the “Defendants”
maintain, cut and landscape the area. This is the same tactic approach they are
pursuing in implementing their rules- and by-laws upon Defendants as they abruptly
change their position after 40+ years, from ignoring this land parcel, and now to claiming
this land parcel is part of the Newtown Estates Community Association, and the
implementation of their governing documents, rules, and policies upon a 82-Acre
Vacant land preservation parcel.
NECA further claims that the “Defendants” are in violation of Section 3.02 of the
MDCCR Declaration by having overgrown grass alongside Komo Mai and Kaahele
Street. The “Defendant’s” entire 82-Acre land parcel consists of mostly overgrown
grass, trees, and shrubbery. This is an erroneous and outrageous claim to have
“Defendants” all of a sudden demand for maintaining their land parcel which is zoned for
Preservation. If “Defendants” were to begin maintaining, and cutting down of
“overgrown” trees, shrubberies, and grass, this would constitute a violation of Hawaii
Laws regarding Preservation zoned land parcels.
 The Land Court Registered Document states, in item #9, that failure to
comply with any of these conditions shall render this Conservation District
Land Use application null and void. Since or about May 2000, the water
meter has been removed, and since the letter dated Oct. 16th
, 2016, Nov.
2nd
, 2016, Nov. 8th
2016, March 30, 2017, and May 12, 2017, by NECA,
Melodie Beecroft, requesting for “Defendants” Angela Sue Kaaihue to
begin maintaining this area, which the Conservation District Land Use

8
Permit already been deemed “null and void”. Throughout the recent
years, NECA, had taken on the liberty of maintaining this grassy woody,
ocean-view overlooking Pearl Harbor area, BUT, it wasn’t until NECA’s
employees ran out of things to harass Defendants Kaaihue with after
removing all items as listed in the “defective” Order on Dec. 29, 2014 and
both parties failing to resolve all remaining issues as ordered by Judge
Castenegetti, that “PLAINTIFFS NECA” began harassing Defendants
Kaaihue again with their harassing campaign beginning of Oct. 16th
, 2016
with notices that her “grass that needs to be cut”. NECA stopped
maintaining this grassy woody, ocean-view overlooking PearlHarbor area,
and “Plaintiffs” began harassing “Defendants” Angela Kaaihue, with the
numerous letters that were issued. (See Exhibit 2- DLNR Application
Approval)
 NECA’S PHYSICAL ATTACK AND ASSSAULT UPON ANGELA KAAIHUE
JUSTIFIES COUNTERCLAIM: COUNT IV- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
The continuous letters of harassment upon “DEFENDANTS” by their NECA
employees, dated Oct. 17th, 2016, Nov. 2nd
, 2016, Nov. 8th,
2016, March 30, 2017, and
May 12, 2017 led to the assault and threatening of “Defendant Kaaihue’s” life “I’m going
to kill this fucking bitch!”. After receiving numerous letters to “cut her grass”, Defendant
Angela Kaaihue attempted to confront the author of the letters, and address the
complaint at the Newtown Estates Recreational Center. As Ms. Kaaihue was
conversing with NECA’s employee Debbie Jang, another NECA Employee Pele
Teufaatamalii , a 300-LB morbid obese receptionist) approached and attacked
Defendant Kaaihue, threatened to “kill Defendant”, and assaulted “Defendant” Angela
Kaaihue. In the cover-up actions of NECA’s employees, they sought out retraining
orders and an Injunction of Harassment against “Defendants” and lied to police officers
stating that “Defendant” Angela Kaaihue assaulted and striked first, and that “she was
out of control”, Kaaihue defended herself by kicking and fighting back until the “Obese
employee” released Defendant Kaaihue’s neck from being in a choke-hold. However, a
twist in the story, a video-tape recorded on April 5, 2017, NOT initially made available to
the police, was later subpoenaed by the “Defendant Angela Kaaihue’s” public attorney,
and depicts the actual and correct assailants as to be NECA’s employees. The
harassment letters and the physical attack was a planned attack on “Defendant
Kaaihue” to lure her into the Recreational Center with the countless letters of provoking
harassment and violations, meanwhile a 300-lb Obese Receptionist (bodyguard) was
awaiting to attack Defendant. This justifies NECA’s 5-year long harassing and assault
pattern of behavior upon the Defendants, Count IV-Intentional act of Emotional Distress
on “Defendant” Angela Sue Kaaihue, by the NECA employees leaving “Defendant”
Angela Sue Kaaihue suffering from Permanent facial injuries, and neck injuries which
requires ongoing care and treatment. (Reference Case #TRO 1SS171000368 ,
1SS171000364 , 1SS171000365). Defendant Angela Kaaihue is faced with 2
Misdemeanor Assault cases, was arrested, booked, posted bail, and released. The

9
assault cases are pending. Till this day, NECA’s staff and employees have NOT been
arrested or charged for the attacked assault upon Defendant which would constitute a
felony charge based on the injuries Defendant Angela Kaaihue sustained. To futher
cover-up NECA’s attack on Defendants, NECA filed a trespass warning against
Defendant. The Injunction Orders that they obtained with Attorney Timothy Rakieten
further prohibits NECA’s employees from contacting Angela Kaaihue, or sending any
more further harassing letters and violations, in which prohibits NECA’s employees from
further harassing Defendant Kaaihue with letters of violations.
Reiterating and rearguing what was already stated and argued in front of Judge
Castegnetti, as stated by Bay Lung, and Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AS TO COUNT II OF
COMPLAINT FILED AUGUST 7, 2013, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
COSTS FILED MAY 11, 2015”, filed on Sept. 17, 2015, in what seems to be a
“deliberate and intentional plan to ruin Ms. Kaaihue, NECA started citing Ms. Kaaihue
for alleged violations of the MDCCR’s and NECA’s ARC Guidelines.”
(Taken from Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Newtown
Estates Community Associations motions for Summary Judgement as to Count II Of
Complaint filed on Aug. 7, 2013 and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.)
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (Pages 2-6, Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm
“Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17,
2015)
 The Creation of Newtown’s Estates,
 Defendants Purchase of the Property and NECA’S Representation to
Ms. Kaaihue,
 NECA’S abrupt Change of Position and Subsequent Admissions,
 NECA’s Enforcement Campaign Against Ms. Kaaihue,
B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (Page 9-12, Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma
law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED
SEPT. 17, 2015)
 NECA’s Refusal to Mediate with Ms. Kaaihue twice.
 NECAS’s Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Count I and Resulting
Order,
 NECA’s Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Ms. Kaaihue’s
Counterclaim,
 NECA’s Criminal Contempt Motion,
 The Order to Mediation and the Failure to Mediation,
 NECA Does NOT Have Authority Over the Property,
 NECA Should NOT Receive Any Award of Any Fines or Fees and
Costs,

10
 NECA’s Fines are Unlawful,
 Neither HRS Chapter 421 J, nor the MDCCR’s Authorize Imposition of
Such Fines,
 NECA Failed to Follow Its Own Policies and Procedures,
 Unsupported Allegations and Misrepresentations,
 NECA’S Refusal to Mediate Precludes an Award to NECA,
 NECA’S Attorney’s Fees and Costs are Outrageous
C. NECAS MOTION MUST BE DENIED (Page 12-19, Bay Lung, Rose, and
Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO,
FILED SEPT. 17, 2015)
D. NUMEROUS EMAILS: Defendant Kaaihue was repeatedly told by the NECA
1-“you are not part of this association”, 2-NECA’s lack of supporting
documents, 3- Warranty Deed is ambiguous. NECA now states that
Defendants are part of the Association, after initially ignoring the property for
40+ years, it’s lack of servitude, and DENYING vacant land parcel would be
more than enough for NECA and their attorneys to retract and reconsider
their malice, intentional, tortious, and negligent actions.
E. WARRANTY DEED- Declarant is described in the definitions of the MDDCR,
to be OceanView Ventures, it’s successors and assignees. Through
certificate of titles, the successor can be tracked down through the chain of
title and Defendants are now the inheritors and successors of the fee-simple
disputed property through a warranty deed that serviced by escrow and
realtors that they are now the rightful owners, and have succeeded the rights
as declarants.
F. CONCLUSION (EXHIBIT 1- Page 20, Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm,
DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015)
 GENUINE MATERIALS OF FACT:
“There are questions of fact in the record which preclude judgment, as a
matter of law, solely on the issues of the reference in the deed.” (Page 11,
Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney Mark Kawata)
“The only issue before the court . . . “ is whether or not the property is
subjected to the governing documents(p. 6) . . . when you’re asserting a claim for
declaratory relief, you’re asking the court to define her rights, which is what she’s
questioning. The Court would be defining her rights under that. And that would

11
resolve that issue(p.18) . .I would think that going back in time to try to assess
things that may have been due . . or before, may be a difficult proposition for the
Association . . the Association started assessing Ms. Kaaihue and ms. Fryer
when they determined that they were members . . . he doesn’t have a date right
off . . .(p.20) it was after the confusion . . . primarily based on whether or not they
are members and whether or no they’re subject to the master declaration(p. 21). .
. It simply is, am I a member, and am I subject to? And that’s what we’re asking
the Court to decide(p.22-23) . . . Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney
Matt Tsukuzaki).
“Regardless of whether or not the property is part of Newtown Estates
and whether our client is subject to those governing documents, the method and
manner in which they’ve been enforced against our client lends itself to the
counterclaims, which I think are supported by the documents that are in the
record and precludes summary judgment in favor of the Association(p.8) . . . I
don’t feel comfortable at this time admitting that the property is subject to these
governing documents .. .our counterclaim was based on whether or not the
property was subject to the governing documents, the court dismissed those
claims for lack of jurisdiction . . .what conduct was in good faith or bad faith,
we’re coming back to these questions that are inappropriate for summary
judgment(p. 16) . . . Mr. Guzman is telling our client, once again, I’ve checked
with Hawaiian’s records, this is their general manager, whos done his own
investigation, which is all happening against the backdrop of 40 years in which
Newtown Estates has not treated this property as part of Newtown Estates. And
he’s saying, your parcel of land is not part of Newtown Estates Community
Association . . .(p.17) Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney JD. Ferry).
“The emails basically said, you have to be annexed to become a party” . .
.regarding the annexation process, if it is desired by the board of directors to
annex any adjacent properties and they decide to move forward, it will require a
three-quarters approval of the Association . . . this is a long process . . . as late
as July 2010, the Association took the position, you’re not in . . . there’s at least a
question of fact as to at what point in time does the owners—Ms. Kaaihue, and
Ms. Fryer, the owners, suddenly become a member? . . .There’s nothing in the
records to indicate that the Association actually changed its position until the time
this lawsuit was filed . . .Ms. Fryer has never been admitted to the Association(P.
16) . . . at what point does the Association now say that whatever you rule is
collateral estoppel on their claims for fees, costs, monthly payments, etc., etc.
(p.22) . . .we haven’t made a determination as to at what point in time that the
Association started billing and whether it was appropriate at that time(p. 22) . . .
, 2015, Attorney Mark Kawata
“. . . I think there was some initial communications informing the two individuals
that they were not… Now, I understand the Association’s position. That was a mistake. It
was an honest mistake. But, nevertheless, and I’m not making any comment on
summary judgment motions, but it’s led to some misunderstanding and I think some
hostility between the parties(p.25) . . .everybody’s ordered to mediation (p.27 . . .
, 2015, Hon. Judge Castegnetti, Court)

12
 SEPT. 25, 2015- HEARING-Judge Castegnetti (Exhibit 6 & 12- Order denying
Plaintiff’s “NECA” & Counter-Claim Defendants “NECA” motion for Summary
Judgement)
Court was continued until Sept. 25, 2015, in which Judge Castegnetti DENIED all 3
motions in favor for Defendant/CounterClaim Plaintiff for summary judgment on the basis that
there are general issues of material fact that exist (Taken from Hoohiki Minutes, dated Sept. 25,
2015):
1- Motion To Withdraw as counsel for Defendant Yong Nam Fryer (M. Kawata).
GRANTED
2- Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant Newtown Estates Community Association’s Motion
for Summary Judgement as to Count II of Complaint filed 8/7/2013 and motion for
attorneys fees and costs (C. Rosenberg). DENIED
3- Counterclaim Deft. Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counterclaim by Def. Yong Nam Fryer filed 8/13/2014. DENIED
4- Counterclaim Deft. Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counterclaim by Deft Angela Sue Kaaihue. Filed 10/23/2013 (M.
Tsukuzaki) (All Motions RSC FM 8/5/2015 by stipulation) DENIED
SEPT. 25, 2015- MINUTES TAKEN FROM HOOKIKI
“THE COURT WILL MAKE NO DETERMINATION AS TO ANY PARTIES
ACTING IN BAD FAITH. AS TO THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE
COURT DENIED ALL MOTIONS AS THERE ARE GENERAL ISSUES OF MATERIAL
FACT THAT EXIST. MR FERRY DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDERS AS TO MOTION
2 AND 4. MR KAWATA DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDERS AS TO MOTIONS 1 AND
3. THE COURT ENCOURAGED COUNSEL TO CONTINUE WITH MEDIATION
EFFORTS AND IF ALL COUNSEL ARE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE THE COURT AND
THE MEDIATOR TO DISCUSS THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, PLACE IT IN
WRITING AND SUBMIT IT TO THE MEDIATOR AND PROVIDE A COPY TO THE
COURT. CONCLUDED. “
Furthermore, genuine materials of fact, and the same disputed facts remain the
same now, as it remained then. Honorable Judge Castegnetti did not rule on any of
NECA’s summary judgment, and the order that raised from Oct. 22, 2014, was a
“settlement conference”, or a “stipulated agreement”as Mark Kawata stated, in the
transcripts proceedings, to have an Order to remove items that were already removed,
was defective, illogical and incoherent, and has no standing. The question of whether
or not this court has jurisdiction, still remains as an outstanding issue, and if the
MDCCR’s Section 7.10- Reservation to Exclude from the Master Declaration is
incomprehensible and/or does not serve it’s purpose. Judge Castegnetti, and all the
parties involved, including Attorney Phillip Li, acknowledges this is the issue, and these
are “general issues of material fact.” (Judge Castegnetti, Sept. 25, 2015)
Furthermore to address the remaining issues of Counterclaim Plaintiff Angela
Sue Kaaihue for the following counts remaining, Count I, Count IV, and Count VI of
Counterclaim filed Oct. 23, 2013.

13
G. ORDER FILED ON DEC. 29, 2014 IS DEFECTIVE and is based on a
DEFECTIVE ambiguous Land Court Warranty Deed between the Grantor
(Wallace Lean) and Grantee (Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer). As
to Count I of NECA’s Complaint, (EXHIBIT 8-Reference Minutes recorded on
Oct. 22, 2014), Written Transcript has been provided.
 ORDER GRANTED ON DEC. 29, 2014 is Defective, AND is based on a
DEFECTIVE Land Court Title, and lack of parties signatures. Both parties
acknowledged that most items were already removed at time of hearing.
 Mark Kawata was ordered to write the Order, BUT, instead, NECA’s
attorney’s wrote the order, and misconstrued the order as stated in the
minutes.
 The Dec. 29th
, 2017 ORDER lacks authority, and is based on a Defective
Land Court Registered Title.
 The 12/29/14 Order did NOT establish that the Property is part of Newtown
Estates and subject to the MDCCR’s or NECA’s authority (Bays, Lung, Rose,
& Holma, MIO, filed Sept. 17, 2015, pg. 13).
 Neither Land Owner signed the Order, neither Land Owner’s attorney Mark
Kawata.
 There was no effort by either parties attorney’s to abide by Judge
Castegnetti’s order:
“THE COURT ORDERS COUNSEL AND PARTIES TO MEET AND
CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES
WITHIN THE NEXT 45 DAYS”. (Referenced Minutes recorded on Oct.
22, 2014, Hookiki).
 It was a “settlement conference” or “stipulation”, “We agree to remove the
“measly little” items, if they agreed to “drop the lawsuit”, and this case would
have been concluded, as of Dec. 2014 (Taken from transcript, Dated Oct. 22,
2014).
 The defective Order, is NECA’s attorneys “biggest victory” and serves the
basis for their subsequent motions and cries for continuous erroneous
demands, pattern of behavior, and method of operation which must be
stopped.
H. ORDER DENYING COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
COUNTERCLAIM BY ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013,
FILED JAN. 15, 2015, (EXHIBIT 6).
I. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NECA’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF COMPLAINT
FILED AUG. 7, 2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS,
FILED MAY 11, 2015, (EXHIBIT 12).

14
J. Counter-Claim Count I- Bad Faith
I. NECA’s, staff, board of directors, attorneys blatantly, deliberately, and
intentionally continue to ignore their own rules and policies, and their
MDCCR’s.
MDCCR, Article I, Definitions, defines “Owner” (a), shall not include the
Declarant with respect to any “lots” owned by the Declarant. (See Definiton
of “Lot”, as described in MDCCR, Article 1, Lot.)
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer have inherited developer rights, the rights as
Declarant Herbert Horita, this section excludes Declarant and it’s successors or assignees,
including Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, the owners of the lot.
MDCCR, Article 1, Definitions, defines “Lot: Shall mean any lot designated
on a subdivision or development map for residential use, or, with respect
to any condominium, an apartment of such condominium, or, with respect
to any townhouse, apartment house, duplex, or multiple dwelling, in low,
medium, or high rise buildings, a complete residential unit, and in each
case, except when clearly contrary to the context, shall include all
improvements thereon. Upon the splitting of any lot pursuant to Section
7.04, the term “lot” shall mean each parcel, condominium apartment, or
residential unit, into which such lot has been split. Upon the consolidation
of two or more lots, pursuant to Section 7.04, the term “lot” shal mean the
parcel consisting of the lots so consolidated.
The MDDCR description of a “lot” excludes Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer’s
lot. Kaaihue’s lot is an undeveloped 82-acre land parcel, consisting of a forest preservation.
There remains no house on this vacant land parcel.
MDCCR, Article I, Defintions, defines “ Declarant: Shall mean OCEANVIEW
VENTURES, a Limited Partnership, it’s successors and assigns.
It’s successors would be described as Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, from
the previous owner, Wallace Lean, Pacific Aina Development, Herbert Horita, Horita Realty.
These are the subsequent successors, unless otherwise stated, this fact remains.
MDCCR, Article II, Section 2.02: Annexation of Subsequent Development
(a)(1)(2) (b)(c), The association may also annex adjacent property upon
approval by an affirmative vote of 3/4ths of all Class A members and by the
Class B member, if any, at a meeting duly called for this purpose. The
annexation of such property shall become effective only when declarant or
association have recorded a declaration which consists of more than one
document, and declares that such property is held and shall be held, sold,
conveyed, encumbered, leased, occupied, and improved subject to
Newtown Estates Restrictions.

15
There has never been no recorded annexation of Kaaihue’s lot as a Subsequent
Development. None in the records, no recordation, none in Land Court or nothing recorded in
the Land Bureau of conveyances.
MDCCR, Article V, Section 5.01: Membership (a)- The term owner shall
mean an apartment Owner as defined in the Horizontal Property Act (Ch.
514, HRS).
Again, this Section discusses Membership, Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer
do not own an apartment in NECA.
MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the Master
Declaration. Declarant reserves the right to exclude from the operation and
effect of and the provisions contained in this Master Declaration. Declarant
reserves the right to exclude from the operation and effect of and the
provisions contained in this Master Declaration those development
increments, which are isolated and separated from the rest of the
NEWTOWN ESTATES , by it’s natural features, such as cliffs and streams,
so that such part of the common and recreational areas of NEWTOWN
ESTATES, including but not limited to any lots which may be constructed
and developed by Declarant within any Area identified as Area C
designated on the Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan, which is
separated from the rest of NEWTOWN ESTATES by Waimalu Stream and by
the cliffs next to it.
Again, this Section of the MDDCR is one that is continuously and blatantly ignored by
the attorneys, by NECA’s board of directors, and by NECA’s employees. It is blatantly ignored,
so that the attorneys, NECA’s employees have a frivolous case to pursue. It is described here in
black and white, but neither of NECA’s attorneys acknowledges or even attempts to address
this section as described as such. It clearly explains and describes Angela Sue Kaaihue’s and
Yong Nam Fryers vacant land parcel, as an area that is separated from the rest of NEWTOWN
ESTATES BY Waimalu Stream and by the cliffs next to it, such as Kaaihue’s property is mostly
made up of cliffs and mountains, and has a stream running through the middle of it, unlike any
of the lots in NEWTOWN ESTATES. Furthermore, “Area C” as identified on the Newtown
Proposed Development Plan has never been produced in Discovery. It is highly likely that the
“Area C” calls for a high-rise as suggested in the Preamble of the NECA’s MDCCR, “Develop
and created thereon a residential complex of single family detached homes in low, medium, and
high rise buildings”.
II. “Evidence shows that NECA does not have any authority over the property,
and that by it’s own actions and admissions, it abandoned any rights it may
have had by taking the position for 40 years that the Property was not part of
NECA.” (EXHIBIT 1, Bays, Lung, Rose, & Holma, MIO, filed Sept. 17, 2015).
III. “NECA repeatedly breached its fiduciary obligations through it’s bad conduct.”

16
IV. “NECA abused it’s powers and failed to follow the law and its own
enforcement procedures in fining and dealing with Ms. Kaaihue.” (EXHIBIT 1,
Bays, Lung, Rose, & Holma, MIO, filed Sept. 17, 2015).
V. “NECA’s patently unfair and unreasonable conduct toward Ms. Kaaihue
renders its fines and attorneys’ fees and costs under the circumstance of this
case unconscionable.” (EXHIBIT 1, Bays, Lung, Rose, & Holma, MIO, filed
Sept. 17, 2015).
VI. NECA failed to “meet and resolve the remaining issues within 45 days”, as
ordered by Judge Castegnetti on Oct. 22, 2014.
VII.NECA failed to represent Kaaihue in 1LD11-1-000271, NECA extinguished its
rights to the servitude. Numerous parties sued Kaaihue for an easement
across her property as would be NECA’s servitude to defend Kaaihue’s
property as stated in the MDCCR’s of NEWTOWN ESTATES.
VIII. NECA picks and chooses which rules they enforce upon Kaaihue’s
property based on only if it “disadvantages Kaaihue.”
IX. NECA and their employees continued with their pattern of harassing
behavior, sending letters to her address about “cutting of grass, fines, and
penalties” in an area that NECA has been maintaining for 40 years. Now,
they change their stance, and demands that Kaaihue landscapes, maintains
and cuts the grass. The same repeated tactic and approach as to their claim
that “the land parcel is part of NECA”, after ignoring this parcel for 40+ years,
as not being part of Newtown”.
X. NECA and their employees attacked and assaulted Kaaihue while Ms.
Kaaihue at NECA’s recreational center on April 5th
, 2017.
XI. NECA’s employees stated that Kaaihue assaulted, striked first, this led to the
false arrest of Angela Kaaihue in 2 counts of assault.
XII.NECA Later released a Video tape showing that NECA’s employees attacked
first, assaulted and attempted to kill Angela Kaaihue, as she was standing
and talking to one of the employees at the entrance of the building, “Im going
to kill this *ucking bitch!” was stated by their NECA employee!”
XIII. NECA’s employees deliberately lied to the police, and wrote false police
statements, and falsely testified in separate TRO case’s filed simultaneously
on April 7th
, 2017; 1SS171000364 , 1SS171000368 , 1SS171000365, leading
to the granting of an Injunction for Harassment, thus, NECA’s employees are
prohibited from further harassment of Angela Kaaihue through letters sent by
the USPS, or by email of frivolous violations, and NECA therefore, changed
it’s policies.
XIV. NECA’s employees caused permanent facial injuries to Angela Kaaihue ,
permanent facial nerve damage, loss of eye sight, unwarranted headaches,
neck pain, and other undisclosed injuries in which she needs and seeks
ongoing treatment and therapy.
XV.NECA’s blatant tyrant behavior continues as they are empowered to under
the guise of the law as they (1) “continued to ‘overlook and ignore’, it’s
responsibilities for this situation, (2) embarked on a selective enforcement
campaign in which it disregarded its own administrative rules and procedures,
(3) refused Ms. Kaaihue’s multiple request to mediate despite the plain
mandate of section HRS Section 421J-13, and (4) larded Ms. Kaaihue’s
account with unreasonable and insurmountable fines and attorneys’ fees, for
which it now seeks a ‘renewed’ summary judgment, arguing the similar
arguments, but in front of another judge, the Honorable Judge Crabtree.’”

17
(EXHIBIT 1- Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015).
XVI. NECA, as a result of the tyrant’s behavior, Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer
continue to suffer as a result of their Bad Faith.
XVII. NECA refused to mediate, NECA refused to follow and abide by their own
MDCCR’s NECA failed to abide by Judge Castegnetti’s order on Oct. 22,
2014- NECA deliberately and intentionally wrote the order, NECA disobeyed
the order by failing to “confer and resolve the remaining issues within 45
days”. NECA misconstrued and abused the Order by filling in the blanks with
their own blatant frivolous requests.
K. CounterClaim- Count IV- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
I. All the listed above items under CounterClaim I-Bad Faith contributed to
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer’s Infliction of Emotional Distress
II. NECA’s pattern of intentional behavior was intentional and calls for serious
concern. “Big associations” such as NECA abusing their power and authority
to steal time. Stealing approximately 5 years of development of home, family,
financial security, resulting in Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
L. CounterClaim- Count VI- Punitive Damages- NECA’s aggressive and non-
compliant behavior, lack of regards of Hawaii State Revised Statutes 421J, refusal to
mediate, their enormous and outrageous fines and fees, campaign of harassment
and assaults,intentional fraud, failure to abide and follow their own MDCCR’s, rules,
covenants, and policies and procedures, NECA’s unsupported allegations and
misrepresentations, unlawful fines, outrageous fees for and costs for their attorneys,
blatant disregards to State laws, and their own politics, misconstruing Judge
Castegnetti’s Orders, failure to acknowledge MDCCR 7.10, to shall be more than
sufficient evidence to determine Counts I, IV, and VI to be in favor for “Defendant
and CounterClaim Plaintiff” Angela Sue Kaaihue.
 NECA’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ARE OUTRAGEOUS
“Finally, the Court must deny NECA’s Motion because, under the circumstances
of this case, NECA and it’s Board went on a “witch hunt” against someone who they
simply do not like, the amounts of the fines and attorneys’ fees and costs it seeks, are
simply shocking. NECA claims that pursuant to HRS Section 421J-10(a) and MDCCR
Section 7.02 (a) it is entitled to an award to its attorneys’ fees and costs, apparently in
excess of $125,000. NECA is wrong. HRS Section 421J-10(a) limits a prevailing
association’s recovery to “reasonable” attorneys’ fees. See HRS 421J-10(a). NECA
makes no effort to portray its “substantial” attorneys’ fees as “reasonable.” See memo.
Supp. Mot., pp.12-13. The same attorneys who seek to recover their fees in this case
(and who have advised NECA or the developer in some capacity for nearly 40 years
(see Ex. C), have: (1) advised NECA while it represented to Ms. Kaaihue that the
Property was not part of Newtown Estates; (2) advised NECA while it reversed course
and claimed that the Property was part of Newtown Estates: (3) advised NECA while it
engineered and pursued its enforcement strategy against Ms. Kaaihue; (4) advised

18
NECA while it declined two requests to mediate from Ms. Kaaihue, and (6) advised
NECA to continues its enforcement and ligitation strategy, which included, among other
things, having Ms. Kaaihue and her mother held in criminal contempt, NECA should not
be allowed to profit from its gross violations and actions.”, (Page 20, Bay Lung, Rose,
and Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO,
FILED SEPT. 17, 2015); and (7) NECA’s failure to abide by Judge Castegnetti’s
Order- Oct. 22, 2014-minutes to “resolve all remaining issues within 45 days”, (8)
NECA’s deliberate misconstruing Judge Castegnetti’s Order by writing a
defective order dated, Dec. 29th
, 2014; (9) NECA’s continued pattern and
behavior of harassment letters; (10) NECA’s employee Physical Assault attack
on April5th, 2017 upon Defendant Angela Kaaihue; (11) deliberate and
intentional false reporting to HPD on April 5th
, 2017,
CONDUCT, UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
4. 10TH
, 11TH
, & 12TH
, MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY
PLAINTIFF NECA
This is Plaintiff’s 10th
, 11th
, and 12th
Motions for Summary Judgment that they have
filed in this case, including the Land court Case recently heard in which Plaintiff’s went
against the Defendant’s whom were seeking an answer to their Declaratory Relief.
Instead Plaintiff’s filed a Motion for Summary Judgment denying all aspects, which was
very inappropriate for Land Court. The filed Motions for Summary Judgment are
listed as follows.
a. 9/17/2014- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue/Yong Fryer
b. 5/6/2015- MSJ against Yong Fryer
c. 5/6/2015- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue
d. 8/5/2015- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue/Yong Fryer
e. 8/5/2015- MSJ against Counter Yong Fryer
f. 8/5/2015- MSJ against Counter Angela Kaaihue
g. 1/23/2018- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue
h. 1/23/2018 MSJ against Counter Angela Kaaihue
i. 12/18/2018 MSJ against Angela Kaaihue
j. 12/18/2018- MSJ against Counter Angela Kaaihue
k. 12/18/2018- MSJ against Counter Yong Fryer
l. 7/23/2018- MSJ (Land Court) against Angela Kaaihue/Yong Fryer

19
5. RULES OF THE HRCP, 1; 12, 54(c), 55, 60
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
HRCP Rule 55. DEFAULT.
(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has
failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear
by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default.
(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:
(2) BY THE COURT. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the
court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered against an infant or incompetent
person unless represented in the action by a guardian, or other such representative who has
appeared therein, and upon whom service may be made under Rule 17. If the party against
whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by
representative, the party's representative) shall be served with written notice of the application
for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the
court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to
determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to
make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such
references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the
parties when and as required by any statute.
(d) Plaintiffs, counterclaimants, cross- claimants. The provisions of this rule apply whether the
party entitled to the judgment by default is a plaintiff, a third-party plaintiff, or a party who has
pleaded a cross-claim or counterclaim. In all cases a judgment by default is subject to the
limitations of Rule 54(c).
Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER.
(b) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. On
motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by
due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party;; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of
the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and
(3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A
motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its
operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to
relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon
the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the
nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a
judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
(Amended December 7, 1999, effective January 1, 2000; further amended May 30, 2006,
effective July 1, 2006.)

20
CONDUCT, UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
Defendants are extremely prejudiced. Not only are their multiple filings of Motions for
Summary Judgments, and Motions in Limine come during the Holiday seasons, but they
are bombarding to cause Defendant’s in becoming burdensome and time-consuming.
UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
Defendants are extremely prejudiced. Not only are their multiple filings of Motions for
Summary Judgments, and Motions in Limine come during the Holiday seasons, but they
are bombarding to cause Defendant’s in becoming burdensome and time-consuming
8. Defendant’s DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT filed Nov. 20, 2018
Defendant’s Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Fryer a Motion for Default on Nov. 20th
, 2018
for Counter Claims filed on August 13th
, 2013, and October 23rd
, 2014.
a. Extreme Prejudice, No inadvertence, no fraud, no mistake
b. Untimely filing for an answer to Counter-complaints
c. 27 days left till Jury Trial
d. Wasting Valuable Resources, court, and Defendant’s time and resources
9. PLAINTIFF’S ARE PREJUDICED-
Plaintiff’s are seeking Leave to Answer, this is an Untimely filing of an answer to
Counterclaims, only 27 days before trial by Jury.
a. Insufficient time to prepare a defense against their answers would be considered
extreme prejudice.
b. Very untimely, over 5 years has passed, to file an answer to the counter-claim
c. This is willful, and intentional neglect to avoid red flags of a default
d. Unable to formulate defenses
e. So many court cases regarding this land case.
f. It has been a burden, caused emotional distress, stress on personal relationships,
family, this is very unreasonable.
g. They flooded Defendants with numerous Motions for summary Judgments, and
litigation.

21
h. And there is not enough time to formulate a meaningful defense, and intentional
withholding of information.
i. This is not carelessness, this is willfully neglected, if there is such a thing as
willful neglect, this would be the perfect example.
j. The rule says they were to provide a written answer in the certain amount of
time allocated, and they failed because they were so occupied with their fraud,
and attempts to steal one’s property.
k. Nowhere in their multitudes of summary judgments did they address any of the
counts or provide defenses.
l. Their attempts to provide defenses or argue our counter-claim in the motions
for summary judgments does not constitute an answer to a counter-claim.
m. This is substantial prejudice.
n. They failed to disclose discovery and information.
10. ESTIMATED DAMAGES:
Estimated damages have been estimated to be $117 MILLION, FILED APRIL 18TH
, 2018,
Civil Claims Information Sheet. Plaintiffs may defer likewise, when taken into consideration the
costs of five years of litigation instead of developing, building, and constructing. These kinds of
losses can not be underestimated and undervalued at the guise of a community association who’s
underlying attempt is to steal one’s property.
 CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, Ms. Kaaihue and Yong Fryer
respectfully requests that the Court deny both Motions in it’s entirety.
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
A. General and Special damages for “Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff”
ANGELA KAAIHUE AND YONG FRYER, in an amount to be proven
at trial;
B. For Compensatory damages for “Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff”
ANGELA KAAIHUE AND YONG FRYER, in an amount to be proven
at trial
C. For Punitive damages against “Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendant”
Newtown Estates Community Association by It’s Board of Directors” in
an amount to be determined at trial.
D. For Plaintiffs “NECA”s Bad Faith, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress, Puntive Damages
E. Such equitable relief as the court deems just to make the
PLAINTIFFS whole for the damages suffered herein.
F. For Punitive Damages,
G. For Costs and Attorney Fees, Suits, and interest and other such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

22
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _________________________
_______________________
Angela Sue Kaaihue
ProSe for Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _________________________
_______________________
Yong Nam Fryer

23
STATE OF HAWAII
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ) Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JHC
ASSOCIATION, by it’s Board of Directors ) (Other Civil Action)
)
) DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT
) ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM )
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES )
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50 )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50; )
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50 )
)
_____________________________________________)
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF,
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
I, ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I am NOT an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
Hawaii, and am NOT a member of any law firm. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and could and would competently testify to them if called as
witnesses.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Defendant Angela
Sue Kaaihue’s Attorney’s Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm for
DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S Motion in Opposition, FILED SEPT.
17, 2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of the DLNR, Office of
Conservation and Environmental Affairs, letter from William Paty, which has
been filed in the above-entitled matter.
4. Attached here.to as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of EMAIL BY NECA,
dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.

24
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of the LETTER BY NECA,
Dated Aug. 6, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL BY NECA,
Dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “6” is a true and correct copy of the ORDER DENYING
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM BY
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013, FILED JAN. 15, 2015.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “7” is a true and correct copy of the MINUTES FROM
Oct. 22, 2014, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “8” is a true and correct copy of the REAL ESTATE
LISTING 2009, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “9” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, PRESIDENT, DATED NOV. 25, 2011, which has been filed in the
above-entitled matter.
NECA, NO ANNEXATION, JULY 8TH
, 2010, which has been filed in the
NECA, OCT. 5TH
, 2009, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NECA’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF COMPLAINT FILED AUG. 7,
2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, FILED MAY 11,
2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.

25
I declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, Nov. 30th, 2018.
____________________________
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE

27
STATE OF HAWAII
)
) DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT
) YONG NAM FRYER
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
)
_____________________________________________)
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF,
YONG NAM FRYER
I, YONG NAM FRYER, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I am NOT an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
Hawaii, and am NOT a member of any law firm. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and could and would competently testify to them if called as
witnesses.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Defendant Angela
Sue Kaaihue’s Attorney’s Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm for
DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S Motion in Opposition, FILED SEPT.
17, 2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
3. Attached here.to as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of EMAIL BY NECA,
dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of the LETTER BY NECA,
Dated Aug. 6, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.

28
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL BY NECA,
Dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM BY
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013, FILED JAN. 15, 2015.
NECA, PRESIDENT, DATED NOV. 25, 2011, which has been filed in the
NECA, NO ANNEXATION, JULY 8TH
, 2010, which has been filed in the
NECA, OCT. 5TH
, 2009, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NECA’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF COMPLAINT FILED AUG. 7,
2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, FILED MAY 11,
2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
I declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, Nov. 30th, 2018.
____________________________
YONG NAM FRYER

29
EXHIBITS 1-12
1. EXHIBIT 1- BAY, LUNG, & HOLMA LAW FIRM “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015.
2. EXHIBIT 3- EMAIL BY NECA, dated July 7, 2010.
3. EXHIBIT 4- LETTER BY NECA, Dated Aug. 6, 2010.
4. EXHIBIT 5- EMAIL BY NECA, Dated July 7, 2010.
5. EXHIBIT 6- ORDER DENYING COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN
ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
COUNTERCLAIM BY ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013,
FILED JAN. 15, 2015.
6. EXHIBIT 9- EMAIL FROM NECA, PRESIDENT, DATED NOV. 25, 2011.
7. EXHIBIT 10- EMAIL FROM NECA, NO ANNEXATION, JULY 8TH
, 2010.
8. EXHIBIT 11- EMAIL FROM NECA, OCT. 5TH
, 2009.
9. EXHIBIT 12- ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
NECA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF
COMPLAINT FILED AUG. 7, 2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND
COSTS, FILED MAY 11, 2015.

30
STATE OF HAWAII
)
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
)
Defendants, )
_____________________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing:
DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE AND
YONG FRYER MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NECA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
ANSWER DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) (FILED OCT. 23RD
, 2013 &
AUG. 13TH
, 2014) COUNTER-CLAIMS’ FILED ON NOV. 13TH
, 2018
was served via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery at their last known
address as follows:
Phillip A. Li, Esq.
733 Bishop Street, Ste. 1770
Honolulu, HI. 96813
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Newtown Estates Community Association
Motooka & Rosenberg
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI., 96813
Attorney for Plaintiff
Newtown Estates Community Association

31
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, Nov. 30th, 2018
_____________________________
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, Nov. 30th
, 2018
_____________________________
YONG NAM FRYER

Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue

More from Angela Kaaihue

Recently uploaded

Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue