CourtListener 10784836

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-FEB-2026
07:50 AM
Dkt. 75 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
AZURE M. SKELLINGTON, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
ISAAC JAMES KAMA, Respondent-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1FDA-XX-XXXXXXX)

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
ISAAC JAMES KAMA© Petitioner/Plaintiff By: Isaac-James Kama©, In
Propria Persona, (FOR THE CORPORATE LEGAL FICTION OF ISAAC JAMES
KAMA©), Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AZURE M. SKELLINGTON, LESLEY N. MALOIAN, D/B/A:
STATE OF HAWAII FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT,
KIMBERLY LIBOKMETO, D/B/A: STATE OF HAWAII FAMILY COURT OF THE
FIRST CIRCUIT, SANDRA M.N. YOU, D/B/A: STATE OF HAWAII FAMILY
COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, ROBERT MARK BROWNING, D/B/A:
STATE OF HAWAII FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT,
Respondents/Defendants-Appellees,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and
JOHN DOES 1-20 (any/all State agents/actors),
Respondents/Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

In this consolidated appeal, self-represented
Respondent-Appellant/Plaintiff-Appellant Isaac James Kama (Kama)
challenges the June 19, 2023 family court protective order
issued against him, and the circuit court's 2024 order
dismissing his November 22, 2023 civil complaint alleging
various claims against the family court judge, clerk, and court
reporter in connection with the family court protective order.
We affirm.
In the family court appeal, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Kama
appeals from the June 19, 2023 "Order for Protection," (Order
for Protection) filed by the Family Court of the First Circuit
(Family Court).1
In the circuit court appeal, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Kama
appeals from the May 20, 2024 "Order Granting (1) Defendant
[-Appellee] Azure [M.] Skellington's [(Skellington)] Motion to
Dismiss, and (2) Defendants[-Appellees] the Honorable Leslie N.
Maloian, Kimberley Libokmeto, Sandra M.N. You and the Honorable
R. Mark Browning's Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice" (Order to

1 The Honorable Leslie N. Maloian presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Dismiss), filed by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
(Circuit Court).2
Kama's Opening Briefs in both CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX substantially fail to comply with HRAP Rules
28(b)(4) and (b)(7). The points of error (POE) do not contain
"where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the
manner in which the alleged error was brought to the attention
of the court." HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii). The argument sections,
while containing some citations to the record, are untethered to
the POEs and are generally devoid of applicable legal
authorities. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). We address Kama's
contentions to the extent they can be discerned. See Erum v.
Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020)
(affording liberal review to pleadings by self-represented
parties to promote access to justice).
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, family court appeal
Kama's discernible contentions appear to be that:
(1) the Family Court lacked subject matter and personal
jurisdiction; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the
issuance of the Order for Protection; and (3) the firearms
prohibition in the Order for Protection violates his Second
Amendment rights.
(1) Kama does not present discernible, applicable
legal authority to support his argument that "the family court
did not have in personam jurisdiction over [Kama] because [Kama]
was the holder-in-due-course of ISAAC JAME KAMA© [sic]; and

2 The Honorable Karin L. Holma presided. We construe Kama's appeal
to include the June 20, 2024 "Final Judgment," (Final Judgment) entered by
the Circuit Court following the May 20, 2024 Order to Dismiss. Hawaiʻi Rules
of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(b)(4).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

therefore, no subject matter jurisdiction exists over the matter
either[,]" and "err[ed] by not respecting and following [Kama]'s
jurisdictional issues and his 48 CFR Ch. 1, §53.228 remedy . . .
that removes jurisdiction from him in the case."
The Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction over
this domestic abuse protective order proceeding under HRS
§ 571-14 (2018 & 2024 Supp.), pertaining to family court
jurisdiction, which provides: "the [family] court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction . . . [i]n all proceedings under
[HRS] chapter 586, Domestic Abuse Protective Orders[.]"
(2) Kama argues "there was insufficient evidence to
support the family court's decision because [Kama] was
erroneously deemed 'not credible'" and Skellington was found to
be "credible and reliable." Kama also claims that the Family
Court "cut [Kama] off and did not give him a full opportunity to
be heard or to hear his evidence of perjury to rebut
[Skellington]'s lies in court[.]"
Appellate courts "will not pass upon [a] trial judge's
decisions with respect to the credibility of witnesses and the
weight of the evidence, because this is the province of the
trial judge." State v. Eastman, 81 Hawaiʻi 131, 139, 913 P.2d
57, 65 (1996) (citations omitted). Kama does not identify where
in the hearing transcript the Family Court denied his
opportunity to be heard, and the transcript does not bear out
Kama's assertion. The Family Court asked Kama twice to respond
to Skellington's allegations of abuse, but in both instances,
Kama gave non-responsive information about Skellington;
digressed to describe other incidents involving Skellington,
sometimes incoherently; and quoted "Scripture." The Family
Court told Kama, "you're unable to answer the Court's

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

questions[,]" and noted that it had "grave concerns" that Kama
had "refused to admit who you were to this Court" at the outset
of the hearing. In concluding that Kama was not credible, the
Family Court explained that it "g[a]ve the parties a full and
fair opportunity to be heard, and attempted to give [Kama] a
full and fair opportunity to be heard; however, [Kama] . . .
g[ave] the Court testimony and statements that [were] not
relevant to the proceedings, and . . . quot[ed] Bible Scripture
instead." We conclude Kama's evidentiary challenges lack merit.
(3) From what we are able to discern, it appears that
Kama claims that the Order for Protection violates his Second
Amendment rights because the Family Court "has not ruled that
[Kama] is 'dangerous.'" Kama cites the papers of Thomas
Jefferson, quotes Justice Amy Coney Barrett's dissenting opinion
in Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) (which held that
a felon firearms dispossession statute did not violate the
Second Amendment, as applied to the felon), and quotes an amicus
brief submitted in U.S. v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).3
Kama does not identify where in the record these
arguments were raised. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii). The record
reflects that Kama did not raise these legal authorities and
argument for his Second Amendment claim to the Family Court, and
they are waived. See County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Fam. Ltd.
P'ship, 119 Hawaiʻi 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) ("As a
general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial,
that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this

3 Rahimi held that a federal statute prohibiting an individual
subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm is
consistent with the Second Amendment, if the order includes a finding that
the individual represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an
intimate partner. 602 U.S. at 690.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

rule applies in both criminal and civil cases." (citations
omitted)).
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, circuit court appeal
Kama appears to contend that the Circuit Court should
not have dismissed his Complaint4 as an impermissible collateral
attack. Kama argues that no law "prohibits [Kama] from pursuing
his civil case which is a collateral attack and a civil tort
claim"; that Kama "has a right to election [sic] this collateral
attack, by and through his corporate fiction ISSAC [sic] JAMES
KAMA© in addition to appealing the family court judgment"; and
that because the Family Court judgment is "void" Kama "is
entitled to attack it collaterally if he chooses that avenue."
Kama does not present a coherent legal argument citing pertinent
legal authorities to support these assertions. Kama also raises
arguments regarding sovereign immunity that are not discernible
enough to be addressed. Kama's arguments are deemed waived.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7); Ito v. Inv. Equity Life Holding Co.,
135 Hawaiʻi 49, 74, 346 P.3d 118, 143 (2015) ("Where an appellant
makes general assertions of a due process violation, without
further elaboration or citation to authority, the court cannot
reach a reasoned conclusion, and the due process argument is
deemed waived." (citing C & J Coupe Fam. Ltd. P'ship, 119 Hawaiʻi
at 373, 198 P.3d at 636)); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.,
114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the
appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not

4 Kama's November 22, 2023 Complaint, filed five months after the
Family Court issued the June 19, 2023 Order for Protection, named, among
others, the family court judge, clerk, and court reporter as defendants, and
alleged that the Order for Protection represented a conspiracy against rights
under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a deprivation of rights under color of law under 18
U.S.C. § 242, and a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985; Kama sought $16.75 million in damages.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that
would guide th[e] court in determining the validity of their
contention").
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the June 19, 2023
Order for Protection, filed by the Family Court of the First
Circuit, and the May 20, 2024 Order to Dismiss, filed by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 5, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Isaac James Kama,
Chief Judge
Self-Represented/Respondent-
Appellant in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
and Petitioner/Plaintiff-
Associate Judge
Appellant in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau,
Associate Judge
Deputy Attorney General
for Respondents/Defendants-
Appellees The Honorable Leslie
N. Maloian, the Honorable R.
Mark Browning, Kimberly
Libokmeto, and Sandra M.N. You
in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX