Grandinetti v. Bobby Ross Group, Inc.

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 6, 2013
DocketSCPW-13-0000021
StatusPublished

This text of Grandinetti v. Bobby Ross Group, Inc. (Grandinetti v. Bobby Ross Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grandinetti v. Bobby Ross Group, Inc., (haw 2013).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000021 06-FEB-2013 10:05 AM

SCPW-13-0000021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

FRANCIS P. GRANDINETTI, aka FRANCIS GRANDINETTI III, aka FRANCIS ANTHONY GRANDINETTI II, with numerous "private ID" names and aliases, a Hawai#i and New York federal citizen, Petitioner,

vs.

BOBBY ROSS GROUP, INC. (BRG), RICH INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, and SEVERAL TEXAS AGENTS FOR NEWTON COUNTY, ET AL., FORMER SHERIFF BOBBY ROSS, GOVERNOR GEORGE BUSH, (TEXAS), DOMINION MANAGEMENT, AN OKLAHOMA AGENT, Class-Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Francis Grandinetti’s

“Supervisory Habeas Corpus and Writ of Mandamus Petition: Texas

Arrest”, which was filed on January 10, 2013, and which we review

as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus,

the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof,

and the record, it is unclear what specific relief petitioner

seeks by way of his petition. Nevertheless, petitioner presents

no special reason for invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction, see Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787,

788 (1976) (the supreme court “will not exercise its original

jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is

available in a lower court and no special reason exists for

invoking its jurisdiction”), and fails to demonstrate a clear and

indisputable right to relief, see Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner

demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

obtain the requested action). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and

a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 6, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oili v. Chang
557 P.2d 787 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1976)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Grandinetti v. Bobby Ross Group, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grandinetti-v-bobby-ross-group-inc-haw-2013.