IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

HONOLULU DIVISION
STATE OF HAWAII

STATE OF HAWAII Case No. 1P11111111

Plaintiff
v. Case No. 1DTA-1111111

NAMES and as Case No. 1P111-11111

Defendant in Error

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE

COMES NOW NAME, a living, breathing, natural born, free man on the soil, a
Sovereign American Citizen, sui juris, defendant in error, with and claiming all of his unlimited,
inherent, unalienable, Constitutionally secured Rights, and with his name lawfully and properly
spelled only in upper and lower case letters, and who appears by Special Appearance, without
accepting the jurisdiction of this Court, which he has duly challenged, and without consenting to
jurisdiction and these proceedings, hereby respectfully makes and presents this AFFIDAVIT OF
TRUTH FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE, for the following valid reasons, based in
truth, fact, law and evidence and in pursuance of H.R.S. §601-7(b):

I, NAME, the undersigned, make this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth of my own free will,
and I hereby affirm, declare and swear, under my oath, that I am of legal age and of sound mind
and hereby attest that the information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration is true and correct
and not misleading.

On September 6, 2011, I appeared before the man currently acting as judge,NAME OF

JUDGE. LAST NAME OF JUDGE has consistently acted outside the scope of his lawful
authority pursuant to his Oath and the specific enumerated duties thereof, has consistently
violated due process of law, as enumerated within the Bill of Rights of the United States
Constitution, in particular, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th Amendments, and pursuant to the Bill of
Rights in the Hawaiian Constitution, and all other rights secured in the Articles and of the
Federal and Hawaii State Constitutions. Thus, LAST NAME OF JUDGE has no delegated
Constitutional authority for his actions in this instant matter, and no Constitutional authority to
deny and oppose the very documents to which he swore his Oath; therefore, no authority to serve
as judge in this matter. American Citizens, in the instant case me and the other alleged
defendants, cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; yet it is
clearly evident that LAST NAME OF JUDGE, acting as judge, and this court, by their actions on
the record, have consistently denied rights secured in the Constitutions and due process of law to
me and the other alleged defendants. My testimony below will confirm what I have just stated.

We were informed while in the Circuit Court for our second arraignment and plea, by
Judge PREVIOUS JUDGE NAME on July 12, 2011, that we were being sent back to District
Court for an "AP", arraignment and plea, in room 7D on September 6, 2011.

On September 6, 2011, I and the joined defendants appeared before the man acting as
Judge, LAST NAME OF JUDGE, When the above referenced case was called, the woman,
acting as Prosecutor for this arraignment proceedings stated, on the record, that she had just been
presented with the files in this matter at 8:30 a.m. and, thus, having had only moments to try to
review them, she was not prepared nor willing to proceed. Despite the fact that the prosecutor
had just received the case file, and could confirm nothing regarding this matter, which was stated
on the record and to LAST NAME OF JUDGE, by the prosecutor, LAST NAME OF JUDGE
moved the proceedings ahead in complete disregard of the prosecutor's statements.

NAME, one of the joined defendant in this matter, was called first to address the court.
NAME stated to the Prosecutor and Judge that they are to have and are required to abide by their
sworn and subscribed Oaths of Office in the performance of their official duties, especially those
duties before this court. LAST NAME OF JUDGE repeatedly made efforts to avoid addressing
this matter by stating that he would not be questioned, "I'm not going to get into that", "we're
here for an arraignment, plea, and trial", "do you have an attorney", and "what are you talking
about", "get to the point", in reference to Ochiai's Oath of Office pursuant to Article 16 section 4
of the Hawaii State Constitution and the requirements thereof. Eventually, the judge affirmed
that he indeed did have an Oath, but perjured this oath on the record in favor of the prosecution
by stating that we were going to a "bench" trial in violation of our Constitutionally claimed
guaranteed and secured Rights pursuant to Article IV, V, and VI specific to the Bill of Rights.
This was the first time we were notified that we were scheduled for trial and a trial without a
jury.

NAME then moved the court to dismiss this entire matter with prejudice against herself and all
alleged defendants because the charges brought against her and us are fraudulent, bogus, and
without substance. LAST NAME OF JUDGE simply stated "Denied. Next". Mish informed
LAST NAME OF JUDGE that she was a Natural Citizen and asked LAST NAME OF JUDGE
why the motion was denied. The prosecution did not address the motion and LAST NAME OF
JUDGE just "Denied" this without basis in any fact and law. LAST NAME OF JUDGE then
asked the woman acting as prosecutor "when will your witnesses be ready"? It was only at this
moment I realized that We were not being granted trial by jury as is our Constitutionally
guaranteed and secured right, not given sufficient time to prepare a proper and lawful defense, or
to obtain discovery, or to do any other further research in preparation of our defense in complete
violation of our Rights guaranteed in the V and VI Amendments of the Federal Constitution.

. LAST NAME OF JUDGE addressed the woman acting as prosecutor in this matter, the
fourth prosecuting attorney to appear in as many proceedings since June 28, 2011, stated that "I
have it down as APT...today". The woman acting as prosecutor stated "That is correct, your
Honor". LAST NAME OF JUDGE stated "Then have a seat. We'll wait to see what the
witness...if the witnesses appear or not, and then we'll see how we proceed from there." NAME
then asked, "What's an APT?", to which NAME replied, "Arraignment, plea, and trial." To
which NAME stated that "I object to that."

I then asked to address the court and referred to the Notice to the Court, filed on or about
September 2, 2011, which it referred to previous established precedent in which I was permitted
to act as spokesman for myself and the other four defendants in this matter which had been
proven on the record in our earlier appearance on July 11 and 12, 2011 in Circuit Court before
Judge NAME OF PREVIOUS JUDGE. LAST NAME OF JUDGE objected to this Notice
because I was not a licensed attorney. I asked him by what fact and law was his objection based,
at which point LAST NAME OF JUDGE ejected me from the courtroom.
 In this same proceeding, I was called back into the courtroom to address the court.
During this address, I stated that the Prosecutor and Judge LAST NAME OF JUDGE have and
are required to abide by their sworn and subscribed Oaths of Office as required pursuant to the
Hawaii State Constitution Article 16 section 4. Judge LAST NAME OF JUDGE acknowledged
that he had sworn such an Oath, but would not confirm abiding by said Oath on the record. I
informed LAST NAME OF JUDGE if he and opposing counsel did not confirm and abide by
said Oaths then the Citizen was not guaranteed that his rights would be upheld and that due
process would be abided by. Therefore, there was no authority for the court to proceed in this
instance.

LAST NAME OF JUDGE told me what I had been charged with and asked me how I
was going to plea. I stated that I could make no plea because this court had no jurisdiction over
me. LAST NAME F JUDGE then stated that he was entering a plea of "not guilty" in my behalf
which I objected. Because Jurisdiction had been challenged on the record and not yet been
proven on the record by the opposing counsel, I stated to LAST NAME OF JUDGE that by
entering a plea for me that he was stepping down from the bench and acting as my counsel, to
which I strenuously objected.

I verbally motioned the Court to have the Prosecutor certify that the charges against me
as being Constitutionally compliant and valid specific to due process of law and the Bill of
Rights, a requirement of due process (as well as pursuant to Federal Rule 11b). Judge LAST
NAME OF JUDGE by his actions refused to do so, and stated that we were going to trial
immediately. The Judge denied my rights to due process, again, recessing the court to have the
State bring in witnesses, so that we could immediately have trial. LAST NAME OF JUDGE,
again, acted against myself as the Defendant, in favor of the office of the Prosecution.

When the court was reconvened, I and the other joined defendants in this matter stated on
the record that we had our witnesses and that we could go to trial. LAST NAME OF JUDGE,
stated, on the record, that because no witnesses for the State could appear before the court that
this proceeding would be converted to an "Arraignment and Plea" and that on November 3,
2011, an "Arraignment-Plea-Trial" proceeding would be scheduled our fourth (4th) Arraignment
and Plea in this matter. I stated that the court is moved to dismiss because we went to trial and
no witnesses appeared in behalf of the State, but LAST AME OF JUDGE stated that it was a
"mistake". Again, due process was violated and the judge acted blatantly against the defendants
in favor of the office of the prosecution.

Myself and the other joined defendants prepared and filed a Notice of Disqualification of
the judge in this instance on or about September 11th, 2011, noting the numerous violations of
due process of law in complete and egregious violation of my and the other alleged defendants
Rights, as well as the blatant demonstrations of prejudice in half of the Prosecution. Judge
LAST NAME OF JUDGE on September 16, 2011, met with a member of the staff of the office
of the Prosecutor, ex parte, in order to discuss how this case would be handled. This information
alleged to be on the record was provided to me by the District Court Clerk on October 21, 2011,
but because I was not an attorney, I was informed that I could not obtain any relevant
information of record specific to this ex parte meeting.

Because the court failed and refused to send me lawful notification or any direct answers
to my inquiries, I traveled from Las Vegas, Nevada to Honolulu, Hawai'i, at considerable
expense and hardship on myself and my family, to attempt to obtain some clarification from the
Court. It was at this time a friend of mine, WITNESS NAME, a witness of what transpired, and
I determined from the District Court Clerk,CLERK, that I was scheduled to be in two courtrooms
on two separated floors at the same time and that my charges had been separated, so that this
travesty of justice and blatant bias could be accomplished. Because the clerk stated that she
could offer no further assistance, she directed me to the office of the Prosecutor.

Mr. WITNESS and I went to the Prosecutor's office and spoke with the "assistant" in the
lobby area. After a brief wait, I was told that she contacted a supervisor who stated that an
attorney would come down to meet with me. After waiting for 45 minutes and no one had come
to speak with me, we approached this "assistant", again. She then called and spoke with a
"supervising attorney" who stated that no one was going to meet with me because I was the
"defendant". I was informed by this "assistant" that anything I might say, can and would be used
against me in a court of law. I stated that I was willing to take that risk do this, as I only needed
clarification regarding the charges. At about 3 p.m., Mr. WITNESS and I left, as it was obvious
that the prosecutors refused to meet with me or provide any clarification.

Additionally, I had filed several motions on 10/13/2011 which were based in the
authority of the Constitution of the United States of America, which included, Challenge of
Jurisdiction, Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, Motion to Claim and Exercise
Right to Assistance of Counsel, Motion to Demand Trial by Jury, Motion to Demand Opposing
Counsel Certify Charges, and a Motion to Continue. On my visit of 10/21/2011, I was informed
by CLERK, District Court Clerk, that JUDGE NAME, despite having been disqualified by
myself and the other alleged defendants in this matter, continued to act as judge and that on
10/16/2011 all motions and pleadings that I had filed, had been denied without any lawful
support for his denial in complete disregard of his oath and the mandates of the Constitution
regarding, at least, aspects of due process.

In conclusion, JDGE NAME has demonstrated clear and blatant bias in favor of the
prosecution by his numerous actions in this instant matter. In addition, in order to accomplish
this, by his own actions, JUDGE NAMEdemonstrated his refusal to abide by his oath of office to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America including protecting the
guaranteed and secured Rights of the Citizens contained therein (See Amendment I, IV, V, and
VI) and the Hawai'i State Constitution Bill of Rights (See Article I Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 14),
observe the protocols of the Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (See HRPP §701-118(1), §806-60,
§806-61, §604-8, Rule 23, at minimum), the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (Rule 22), and the
relevant sections of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes (See H.R.S. 37), Judicial Canons 2 and 3, and
the Constitutionally held mandates of due process of law, including but not limited to the failure
to produce witnesses against the alleged defendants, dismissal when witnesses fail to appear,
right to trial by jury, rushing to justice by denying alleged defendant's right to request discovery
and to present evidence, failure to lawfully notify when courtroom changes appear, ex parte
meetings with prosecutor, etc. The Hawai'i State Constitution, All Codes and Statutes there
from, and the Judicial Canons all refer and point to and demand adherence to the Constitution of
the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as the declared Supreme Law of the Land
(See Hawai'i State Constitution - Preamble). These Constitutions is where I have based the
authority of my defense and been denied.

I certify by my signature that this affidavit is made in good faith, as I speak for myself in
this matter without other representation. Further, because the man acting as Judge, JUDGE
NAME, has repeatedly and consistently acted in bias and in favor of the office of the
Prosecution and in violation of my Constitutionally secured and guaranteed Rights and in
violation of the rules of criminal and courtroom procedures, he is therefore Disqualified pursuant
to H.R.S. §601-7(b) for demonstrating a blatant bias in favor of the office of the Prosecutor.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

All Rights Reserved

________________________________ _______________________

NAME , Affiant Date

NOTARY STATEMENT

In the State of Nevada

County of Clark

I swear that on this_____day of October, 2011, the above named Affiant,

_____________________, appeared before me, and of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of
Truth.

__________________________

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:______________

Notary Seal: