This website has been sabotaged by an unknown person, so all the public has been able to see was
"This site is not currently available..." The site was cleared up with GoDaddy, but AGAIN the site has disappeared.
Now THAT is legal corruption!
If you have information, please email: email@example.com
THOMAS E. HO'OKANO is one of the sleaziest attorneys in California. He was sued by former clients, then tried to get that charge eliminated in bankruptcy, but a judge ordered him to pay his victims $3,777,787.73.
Since Ho'okano was never disbarred, he worked to pay off that debt by continuing his crime spree by defrauding other clients for up to a million dollars in one case, and again the CA Bar Assn. refused to disbar or even censure him.
Attorney Thomas Ho'okano, who was being sued by a former client in August 2011, lied to the judge and won.
Ho'okano is being sued in Sacramento, CA on 9-16-12, by former clients, and has twice issued threats to the plaintiff after being served the summons:
"If you do not dismiss the Sacramento County Small Claims Court within five days from this communication, I shall seek dismissal and sanctions against you in an appropriate venue and I may retain private counsel to seek redress."
From a former client:
Ho'okano scammed us out of over a quarter million dollars and sent us deep into debt. We could not get him prosecuted, could not legally sue him in spite of clear evidence and numerous witnesses, and the California Bar Association found that he did nothing wrong.
Sacramento D.A. Jan Scully has repeatedly refused to prosecute, or even investigate, complaints that Ho'okano is guilty of hundreds of acts of fraud, etc. committed over a period of several years, and totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As the fraud is being revealed to the public, Ho'okano has responded with threats.
We were told that Ho'okano deliberately sets up clients to lose in court so he can take the case one appeal and continue to make a small fortune from their misery.
That would explain why the insurance company didn't want to settle out of court.
We have demanded his prosecution but, because he's an attorney, he's above the law, so the Sacramento D.A., Jan Scully, has refused to even investigate.
Here's a partial list of what he's done to us:
1. Before the trial, he s
2. He NEVER went over our testimony with us. As a result, we were lost during our testimony and didn't even know what questions Ho'okano was going to ask us.
3. I kept telling him to subpoena witnesses to the violence, but he never did. Instead, he had only one person who offered heresay testimony, which everyone knows is not allowed.
4. The insurance company had destroyed evidence which would have proven they were lying, and Ho'okano had copies of that evidence but never used it, so the falsified evidence was allowed throughout the trial. That evidence was critical to proving that the insurance company witnesses were committing hundreds of counts of perjury.
5. The insurance company spent approximately twice as long presenting their case, presented numerous witnesses, a showed how different it is when professionals are prepared and have talked to their clients about their testimony.
At the last minute he told us we had to hire a second attorney to help him, and that attorney did a much better job.
He was NOT PREPARED FOR TRIAL. DURING THE TRIAL:
4. He would say things like naming the next witness and asking me what I "had on" them. He was so unprepared, and didn't even have the facts that I had told him about long before trial.
5. He kept doing things over and over again that infuriated us, the judge, and probably the jury too.
Comments made by the judge to Ho'okano:
- "Mr. Ho'okano, you've got to stop your question at some point and let him answer."
- After Ho'okano objected to a question he thought might be asked, the judge said, "First, I don't know what the next question or even the line of questioning is going to be at this point. And if you want to make that objection, if and when that comes up.
- "Objection's overruled" after Ho'okano
- "If you talk over the Court or over somebody else, the court reporter's record is not going to be complete. So please bear that in mind. So state your objection, please, for the record."
- Ho'okano: "What kind of conclusion would you draw from this? Would it be possible that that..." JUDGE: "Okay. One question at a time."
- Insurance company atty: "Objection, your Honor, to the way the question was phrased. It's argumentative." JUDGE: "Objection sustained."
- "MR. HO'OKANO: Your Honor, I want to object..." JUDGE: Counsel...you can make an objection. The objection would be it lacks foundation." MR. HO'OKANO: "Lacks foundation, your Honor." Judge: "I'm going to overrule the objection
- Judge: "I would caution Mr. Ho'okano that your enthusiasm for your case can't translate into hostility towards the other side." MR. HO'OKANO: "Yes, your Honor." JUDGE: And it's the wrong thing to do, and I also believe it's ineffective to the advance of your cause."
8. He was supposed to produce a DVD as evidence, but allegedly couldn't play it for the jury, because
Ho'okano's expert witness:
9. He insisted on one expert witness who was difficult, demanding, extremely expensive, and was then presented in a "limited capacity", whereas the insurance company produced two expert witnesses who were very convincing, knowledgable,
10. He asked his own expert witness if he believed the insurance company clients were telling the truth and he said 'yes'. Those clients were completely lying about that, so Ho'okano sabotaged our case.
His expert witness agreed with numerous lies posed by the insurance company lawyer, and he had been contacting that insurance company, trying to work for them, with Ho'okano's knowledge, at the same time he was supposed to be testifying against them.
11. Then he asked if the attacker had counseling, and the expert talked about their side's
'cooperation', etc. The attacker had NO counseling as far as we knew, was never called as a witness, and never showed us any remorse. So, it was outrageous for Ho'okano and his expert witness to deliberately speak in his defense!
12. He then asked if his own client was "predisposed to mood disorders" and the witness said, "I think he has more disposition than the average person by a small but significant percentage to have a major depressive disorder." Nobody else made that claim, but they both continued to attack their own client.
In fact, they falsely claimed their client did things to others, but couldn't call a single witness to cooberate anything.
13. The expert then falsely claimed his client provoked the attack, even though the insurance company's witnesses knew better, and never said that. Under Ho'okano's questioning, he continued to lie about events he had no knowledge of. He even admitted, many times, under cross examination that he hadn't even read documents that he considered important to his evaluation.
That was the expert we repeatedly told Ho'okano that we did NOT want, but Ho'okano insisted that he was the ONLY one he could find.
14. The expert testified that their client may have omitted details, may have forgotten things,
15. The insurance company's lawyer said, regarding the expert witness and Ho'okano, "...there are many things that he wasn't provided by Mr. Ho'okano. We already -- and that's why I went to such length to establish that it was so important to the doctor that he receive these things."
16. While there were ongoing statements about their client, we couldn't find anything positive about him, except that he was intelligent, giving the jury the impression that there was nothing good to say about him.
The expert testified against his own client over a period of days, and volunteered negative information about their client, as Ho'okano kept asking him the questions which they must have discussed many times previously.
Ho'okano had told us not to be present in court when the expert testified, and now we know why.
One of the worst acts of betrayal was Ho'okano, telling the jury that we were asking for the outrageous amount of $735,000 for non-punitive damages. We were as horrified as the jury, and that was probably the reason they awarded us nothing, even though the jury decided in our favor, that the school principals were at fault.
The insurance company lawyer tore Ho'okano's expert to shreds.
These complaints are shocking proof of how corrupt the legal system is, and why there can't be a statute of limitations for prosecuting and suing lawyers (www.legalparasites.net ).
There will be no justice until Ho'okano is in prison and has paid all his victims.