CURRENT PROGRESS
OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT BY MEMBERS OF THE FFCA TO DISSOLVE THE FCCA :
1.) Below is the document filed Nov. 29,2016 to dismiss the attorney they hired against us. The hearing for this is January 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
at 777 Kilauea Ave in Hilo, Circuit Court, third floor, Judge Glenn S. Hara.
Thunderfoot
P.O. Box 840
Volcano, Hawaii, 96785
(808) 968-1111
Pro Se for Petitioners
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
______________________________________________________________________________
Thunderfoot, et al., )
) Civil No. 16-1-00304
Petitioners, )
)
) MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS
) ) TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS'
Fern Forest Community ) COUNSEL
Association, Inc., ) PETER L. STEINBERG,
) ATTACHMENTS # A,B AND C,
) NOTICE OF MOTION, AND
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
Defendants. ) DATE : January 18, 2017
)
) TIME : 9:00 a.m.
) JUDGE : GLENN S. HARA
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION BY PLANTIFFS TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL PETER L. STEINBERG, ATTACHMENTS # A,B AND C, NOTICE OF MOTION AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1. The Petitioners humbly request that the Defendants' attorney, Peter L. Steinberg, be dismissed from representing them based on the following reasons described in items 2 through 5, which include : perjury, accepting misappropriated funds, incompetence,unethical and unprofessional behavior, as well as possible collusion and conspiracy.
2. The Petitioners allege that attorney Peter L. Steinberg committed perjury in Court on October 19, 2016, in a hearing for a Motion to dismiss our complaint. Under TITLE 37 - HAWAII PENAL CODE CHAPTER 710 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION§710-1060 - Perjury - Mr. Steinberg did knowingly make a false statement to the Court when he claimed he did not know the Corporation was frozen at the DDCA BREG office of the State of Hawaii. He then proceeded to dismiss the authority of the DCCA BREG office. This seems to contradict his statements that he made to the Court that day about a lawsuit in Circuit Court on Oahu to settle the Board dispute issue. Why would you need to settle the Board dispute issue if the Corporation isn't frozen ? How could Mr. Steinberg not know the Corporation was frozen with the DCCA BREG office when they are Apellees in the case he mentions (Civil No 16-1-1206-06 RAN)? See Attachment # B. Further, Robbie Rose overheard Mr. Steinberg tell his clients how he knows someone at the DCCA BREG office and he will get them unfrozen soon. This happened prior to time for the Court case to start outside the Courtroom on the lounge seats. He obviously knew the Corporation was frozen and deliberatley made a false statement to the Court to the contrary, consituting perjury, as well as, unethical behavior (under the preamble of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct), incompetence, and possibly collusion and conspiracy.
3. The Petitioners allege that the attorney Peter L. Steinberg is being illegally hired by a dysfuctional illegal Board using Court ordered road maintenance money as reported in Attachment # A. The road maintenance money is the only reported income in their newsletter and, since that money is Court ordered for road maintenance (Civil case number 87-519) in Documents #2, Exhibit #4 of original complaint, it cannot be misappropriated for non road maitenance issues. This case has nothing to do with road maintenace. Therefore, the payment for Mr. Steinberg's services is from a misappropriation of funds, a violation of a Court order and a slap in the face to the Court, as well as a violation of a variety of other Laws.
Further, since Mr. Steinberg was informed of the source of his payment, verbally, in Court on October 19, 2016, he is undeniably aware where his fees are coming from now from that point onward. So, further acceptance of funds by Mr. Steinberg for his services post October 19, 2016 appears to be criminal ( like theft and embezzlement), collusion and conspiracy, and a variety of other violations of Law.
Still further, after Court on October 19, 2016, he announced that, "I do not care where my money comes from" to the Petitioners in a discussion of the source of his payment, as everyone waited for the elevator. This attitude is alarming and would make it appear that he has full knowledge and intent of accepting misappropriated funds and plans to continue to do so.
Also, the money being used to pay him comes from us, the members of the Corporation. And since the Board is suppossed to be representing us,the members, why would the Board hire an attorney to fight against us with our own money ? That means the illegal Board (self-elected via electoral fraud) is going against what the members want, and is failing to listen to the members. When the Corporation hires an attorney,it is to represent the members, so how can this attorney continue to oppose the very members he is supposed to represent? Plus, the Corporation does not have the required seven Boad members as stated in the 1979 By-Laws to have a quroum to hire the attorney; ( any By-Laws produced after 1979 are invalid since there was never a proper membership meeting to alter them). This makes the Corporation dysfuctional and unable to operate legally, much less hire an attorney to fight the very members they are supposed to represent, violating multiple State of Hawaii business Laws.
Further, The illegal Board that hired Mr. Steinberg produced a newsletter, see Attachment # A, where they fail to mention this lawsuit to dissolve the Corproation to the members. That is a failure to disclose and adds to the list of violationf of : their statutory duties, standards of conduct for officers under 414D-149, obstruction of justice, and adds to the list of why the illegal Board has no authority to hire Mr. Steinberg.
4. The Petitioners allege that attorney Peter L. Steinberg has committed unethical behavior and has ignored the preamble of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct with his actions as described throught this document and in the "SUMMARIZED STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT..." filed on Nov. 16, 2016.
Another example of how Mr. Steinbergbehaves unethically is when he attempted to dismiss our complaint at the October 19, 2016 Court hearing at least 15 minutes prior to the set Court time. This seems unethical, sneaky and underhanded. Robbie Rose fortunately was able to notify the Court that Thunderfoot was on her way. Court then started five minutes early. He also stated many inflammatory remarks regarding Thunderfoot. This was all witnessed by Robbie and Steve Rose. Mr. Steinberg's behavior was unprofessional to say the least.
Also, Mr. Steinberg has a habit of leaving out the relevant information for us to be able to show up to defend ourselves at the hearings in regards to the Board dispute issue involving the DCCA BREG office. Also, the documents he gave to Thunderfoot in Court on October 19, 2016 was dated Jan and Feb of 2016 and was not even a Court document. It was a Petition to the State of Hawaii DCCA BREG office to determine the legitimate Board. This not only supports the allegations in item #1 above that he knew the Corporation was frozen, but adds another example of how deceitful Mr. Steinberg is. He told the Court there was an October 25, 2016 hearing in Oahu Circuit Court to determine the Board, so why wasn't Thunderfoot given that document ? Why was she given outdated information that wasn't even a Court document, see Attachment #C ? Also, why would Mr. Steinberg present the Board dispute issue to the Court as a fresh case to which the Judge was interested in the results of that case, when the actual case has been appealed as seen in Attachemnt # B (that was sent to Thunderfoot by the Attorney General's office) ? This behavior further supports deceit by Mr. Steinberg. Plus, the only time we hear about a Court date from him in regards to the Board dispute issue was when he mentioned it on October 19, 2016 in Court for this case, for the Board dispute case to be on October 25,2016; but did not mention time or place. How were we supposed to show up when we were never properly served by Mr. Steinberg throughout that entire process ?
These deliberate acts are not only unprofessional and unethical, but could also fall under perjury Laws since Mr. Steniberg deliberately misrepresented that case's accurate status to the court. It could also be construed as an obstruction of justice and a variety of other crimes as well.
5. The Petitioners allege that the presence of attorney Peter L. Steinberg is an obstruction of justice, has delayed justice, is financially harming an impoverished community, and is a detrimental representative of the State of Hawaii legal system. His behavior contributes to the loss of faith and obtainment of justice by the "average joe" in legal arena. Therefore he should be dismissed from representing the Defendants in this case based on perjury TITLE 37 - HAWAII PENAL CODE CHAPTER §710-1060 and §710-1065 ) , unethical behavior (violations of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct), accepting misappropriated funds (§708-831 and any other applicable Laws), collusion and conspiracy (§ 705-520) and all other applicable Laws deemed by the Court, the ultimate arbiter of the Law.
6. The Petitioners also request that Peter L. Steinberg return all misappropriated funds to the Corporation.
Dated : Nov. 29, 2016, Hawaii Respectfully submitted
There were 23 signatures