MYLES S.

BREWER
E-mail: mules e,breinerlaw.net
Davies Pacific Center
841 Bishop Street, Suite 2115
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808)526-3426
Facsimile:
(808)521-7680

vTTE ~r" N,',Wit

4364

~ILEU

2 16 J~,'~ -6 ~ 3: t~ 3

Attorney for Plaintiff

GORDON J. KNOWLES

IN TIC CIlZCUIT COURT OF THE FIlZST CIRCUIT

~~ ~,
GORDON J. KNOWLES,

CIVIL NO.

Plaintiff,
~~
SHERYL SUNIA, individually and as an agent
of the Honolulu Police Department; DIANA
NII.,ES-HANSEN, individually; CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal
corporation; the HONOLULU POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a department within the City
& County of Honolulu;
and DOES 1-20.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL;
SUNIMONS IN A CIVII, ACTION

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff, GORDON J. KNOWLES, ("Plaintiff') by and through his attorney3 hereby
alleges and avers as follows:

I do hereby certify that this is

correct copy of th
Io

full, true, and

le in this office.

Clerk, Circuit Court, First Circuit

PARTIES
Plaintiff, GORDON J. KNOWLES,is and was at all times relevant herein a
resident ofthe State ofHawaii and a citizen ofthe United States of America("United States").
2.

Defendant SHERYL SiJNIA ("Defendant Sunia")is and was at all times relevant

herein a resident ofthe State ofHawaii and a citizen ofthe United States. Defendant Sunia is
being sued individually, and as an agent ofthe Honolulu-Police Department.
3.

Defendant DIANA NII~ES-HANSEN ("Defendant Niles-Hansen")is and was at

all times relevant herein a resident ofthe State of Hawaii and a citizen ofthe United States.
Defendant Niles-Hansen is being sued individually.
4.

Defendant CITY &COUNTY OF HONOLULU ("Defendant City") is a

municipal corporation operating within the State of Hawaii.

5.

Defendant HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT("Defendant HPD")is a

department within the City &County of Honolulu, current corporate status unknown.
6.

"Defendants John or Jane Doe 1-25," are "DOE ENTITIES 1-25"("Doe

Defendants") are fictitious names representing Defendants whose true names, identities, and/or
capacities are as yet unknown to Plaintiff and his Counsel, despite their inquiry and due
diligence, who are or were in some manner responsible for or engaged in the activities alleged
herein so as to be liable for injuries suffered by Plaintiff.
7.

Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint, after discovery has

commenced, and more specifically identify any Doe Defendants whose true identities, capacities
and actions become known to Plaintiff through discovery.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-2,-

Knowles v. Sunia

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

8.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth

herein, all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-7 above.

9.

Upon information and belief, Defendants' acts and/or omissions, which are more

fully alleged herein, were performed and/or omitted under the color of statutes, ordinances,
customs, regulations, procedures or usages of the State of Hawaii.

10.

Defendants' acts and/or omissions subjected Plaintiff, or caused Plaintiff to be

subjected to, the deprivation of rights, privileges, and/or immunities secured by the Constitution
ofthe State of Hawaii, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, and City &County Departmental Procedures
and Practices.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
11.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-10 above.

12.

As alleged more fully below, Defendant Sunia, Defendant Niles-Hansen,

Defendant HPD, certain Doe Defendants employed by Defendant HPD,and Defendant CITY
(collectively "Defendants") acts or omissions occurred within the City &County of Honolulu,
State of Hawaii.
13.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen and certain Doe

Defendants acted as agents of Defendant HPD, by specifically using police powers and accessing
confidential police data bases for the purpose of injuring, harassing, investigating, or gathering
information on Plaintiff.

CONIPLAiNT FOR Dt1MAGES

-3-

Knowles v. Sunia

14.

Defendant HPD is responsible for the acts and/or omissions of its employees and

agents entrusted with police powers, specifically including but not limited to all active employees
and any persons accessing HPD records and files through HPD protocols and otherwise not
available to the public.
15.

Defendant City is responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees and

departments, specifically including the Honolulu Police Department.

16.

Defendant City and Defendant HPD are responsible and/or liable for the acts

and/or omissions of its individual police officers who overreacted based on the
misrepresentations of Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen. Doe Defendant police officers who
acted upon the false and illegal claims of Defendants Sonia and Niles-Hansen by initiating the
arrest, imprisonment and subsequent search &seizure against Plaintiff are liable as agents of
Defendant HPD.
17.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sonia was an agent of Defendant HPD at

all times relevant to this Complaint, and that she acted with actual police powers accessing HPD
data bases not available to the public.
18.

Alternatively, Defendant Sonia was an agent of Defendant HPD at all times

relevant to this Complaint, and that she acted with defacto police powers, causing the arrest and
false imprisonment ofPlaintiff, and the seizure of his property.
VFNTTF
19.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates By reference, as if fully set forth

herein, all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18 above.

20.

All actions complained of took place in the City &County of Honolulu, and all

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-4-

Knowles v. Sonia

Defendants reside in the City &County of Honolulu. All potential witnesses are similarly located
in the City &County of Honolulu.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as iffully set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-20 above.

22.

Plaintiffis a Member ofthe United States Army Reserves, and holds the rank of

Lieutenant Colonel. Throughout his military career, Lieutenant Colonel Knowles has worked as
an anti-terrorism officer with the 322d Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter, a military police
officer, was deployed to Iraq, and participated in numerous peacekeeping missions in Korea,
Japan, Thailand, Thailand and Indonesia with distinction and honor.
23.

In October of 1998, Plaintiff was hired as an Assistant Professor at Hawaii Pacific

University("HPU")and has been on staffthere as a sociology professor for fifteen(15) years.

24.

Plaintiff is a published author in his field ofsociology and criminal justice in both

civilian and military publications.

25.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sheryl Sonia("Defendant Sonia") was

also a Professor of Criminal Justice at the Hawaii Pacific University("HPU)during the relevant
times alleged in this Complaint.
26.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sonia was a Honolulu Police Officer

(Detective)for some years prior to becoming a professor.

27.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Sonia was either terminated, relieved of

her duties, or resigned from the Honolulu Police Department for reasons stemming from
charges offabricating evidence and misconduct relating to a 2003 homicide investigation.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-5-

Knowles v. Sonia

28.

Prior to the events that lead up to Plaintiff's arrest, incarceration, and the events

that give rise to this Complaint, Defendant Sunia and Plaintiff worked in the same departments at
Hawaii Pacific University.
29.

Prior to 2015, Defendant Sunia was a Professor at the Hawaii Pacific University

and a colleague ofPlaintiff's who was in line for the same job advancements as Plaintiff.
30.

At some time in the late part of2014, Defendant Sonia expressed in a

conversation with PlaintifFthat she thought the administration at HPU was considering letting
her go because she did not have a PhD degree (Doctorate ofPhilosophy).
31.

In or about October 2014, Carlos Juarez, another employee of Hawaii Pacific

University ("HPU"), confronted Plaintiff stating that he had information that Plaintiff was also
working at the University ofHawaii, Manoa.
32.

Plaintiff believed that such outside work mightjeopardize his employment status

with HPU.
33.

Plaintiff became concerned that he was under surveillance by HPU administration

officials, and made a police report alleging "stalking"'/ by said officials.

34.

In or about October 2014, Plaintiff had a conversation with David Lanoue, Dean

of HPU ("Lanoue"). At that time, Dean Lanoue informed Plaintiff that he in fact did have
someone looking into Plaintiff's outside employment activities.
35.

In or about December 2014, HPU Provost Matthew Liao-Troth ("Liao-Troth")

and Vice President Diana Niles-Hansen("Niles-Hansen") met with Plaintiff and confronted him

1/ Plaintiffuses a federal Department of Justice definition of" Stallcing," which includes "obtaining
personal information about the victim by accessing public records, using intemet searches," etc. This defuution was
not applied by the Hawau District Court under state law for a TRO.(see 44 infra ).
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-6-

Knowles v. Sonia

about his outside employment activities. At that meeting, Plaintiff objected to the "stalking" into
details of his personal life and terminated the meeting.
36.

Upon information and belief, it was around this time Defendant Sunia offered to

investigate, surveil, and collect information on Plaintiffsoft-campus activity by accessing

confidential police data bases.
37.

Some time at the end of2014 to January of2015, Defendant Sunia began to

represent herself as Plaintiffs supervisor.

38.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen agreed to

obtain Plaintiffs private information in order to manufacture and arrest ofPlaintiff and search of
his home.
39.

In or about February of2015,Plaintiffreceived written notification from HPU

administration that he would be placed on unpaid administrative leave, pending their

investigation.
40.

In February, 2015 Plaintifffiled and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC")complaint alleging retaliation. Plaintiffis separately pursuing all Hawaii Pacific

University employment issues separately, and those job/retaliation issues are not complained of
in this action.
41.

On March 23,2015,Plaintiff filed individually for a Temporary Restraining Order

against HPU Provost Matthew Liao-Troth and Vice President Diana Niles-Hansen and David
Lanoue,("HPU administrators")to stop the perceived invasion into his privacy. That Petition
was eventually dismissed for insufficient pleading.(See footnote 1,supra)
42.

On March 27,2015 Plaintiff filed for Workers' Compensation benefits based

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-7-

Knowles v. Sunia

upon "hostile work environment" created by HPU administrators. Plaintiff is separately

represented in that matter, and those issues are not complained of in this action.
43.

In or about June of 2015, Plaintiff receives written notice that he has been

terminated from HPU.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
Civil Conspiracy
44.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein,

all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-45 above.

45.

At some time between January and September of 2015, Defendant Sunia had

accessed Honolulu Police Department records to determine that Plaintiff owned a lawful firearm.
46.

Defendant Sonia Defendant Niles-Hansen conspired to have Plaintiff arrested

based solely on the information disclosed by Defendant HPD.

47.

On September 1, 2015, Defendants Sonia and Niles-Hansen and their agents or

co-conspirators contacted the Honolulu Police Department, and reported that PlaintifFwas in the
Fort Street Mall area, had a gun, and was planning an "active shooter"2/ event at the HPU
campus.
48.

On September 1, 2015, Defendant Honolulu Police Department("Defendant

HPD")acted on Defendant's Sunia's allegations of an "active shooter" event at the HPU campus.
49.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant HPD responded with

such force and prejudice because Defendant Sonia had called in an "active shooter" situation
within the protocols of HPD.

z/ "Active shooter" is a term of art in police vernacular, which causes well-trained police officers to respond
with a higher degree of awareness, anticipation and expectation to utilize deadly force.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-g-

Knowles v. Sonia

50.

At that time, Plaintiff was falsely arrested and incarcerated based solely on the

allegations of Defendant Sonia and Defendant Niles-Hansen.

51.

The criminal matter that followed that arrest was State vs. Knowles, 1DCW-15-

0004531. That case was dismissed with prejudice on February 2, 2016, because the unknown
"complaining witness" refused to show.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
Civil ConspiracX
52.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as iffully set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-51 above.

53.

In accordance with their plan to have Plaintifffalsely imprisoned, arrested and

professionally maligned, permanently unemployable, Defendant Sonia advised and conspired

with Defendant Niles-Hansen to get Defendant HPD to search Plaintiff's apartment and
potentially engage Plaintiff in a conflict.
54.

Defendants Sonia and Niles-Hansen conspired to manufacture a Petition for a

Temporary Restraining Order("TRO')and orchestrate the circumstances where Plaintiff's

residence would be searched and Plaintiff possibly shot.
55.

Defendants, each ofthem, knew that the information pertaining to the lawful

possession of a handgun, combined with a demand that Defendant HPD serve a TRO would
create a situation where Defendant HPD would force the seizure ofthe handgun, and potentially
incite a conflict with Plaintiff when they searched his home. Fortunately, Plaintiff did not take
the bait.
56.

Defendants Sonia and Niles-Hansen conspired to file a TRO solely in order to

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-9-

Knowles v. Sonia

have HPD search Plaintiff's home and engage Defendant in another conflict. This plan was
based on Defendant Sunia's knowledge ofHPD protocols, and the information Defendant HPD
unlawfully disclosed to her.
57.

This plan was to insure that Plaintiff could not only never return to work at HPU,

he could never work anywhere.

58.

Subsequently, Defendant HPD has admitted that Defendant Sunia had accessed

their data base and obtained information about Plaintiff's gun registration and permit.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

False Imprisonment
59.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as iffu11y set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-58 above.

60.

Upon information and belief, Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen orchestrated

this HPD/Swat responses of September 1 and September 2,2015 with the specific intent to cause
Plaintiff's arrest, imprisonment, and trauma.
61.

Defendant HPD knew or should have known that the unauthorized disclosure of

the firearm information was to be used for a TRO justified arrest, search and seizure.
62.

Defendant HPD has a standing practice of disclosing firearm information to

manufacture TRO searches.

63.

That this arrest and false imprisonment was unjustified and caused Plaintiff

damages to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
Defamation Slander

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-1~-

Knowles v. Sunia

64.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as iffully set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-64 above.

65.

At some time prior to September 2, 2016, Defendants Sunia, Niles-Hansen, and

Defendant HPD conspired to file for a Temporary Restraining Order, in order to manufacture a
basis to search Plaintiff's home without a warrant. See, Niles-Hansen v. Knowles, Case No.
1SS-1-000904(HI 1~ Cir., 2015). This fraud was based solely on the information Defendant
HPD released to Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen.
66.

On September 2,2015 and with specific malicious intent to injure Plaintiff,

Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen filed an application for a restraining order in an effort to
manufacture a pretense for Defendant HPD to search Plaintiffs home.
67.

Defendants Sunia and Niles-Hansen plead under oath that they were in imminent

danger in order to get the TRO.

68.

On September 2, 2015, Defendant HPD followed its protocols for serving a TRO

upon someone who possesses a firearm, and also searched Plaintiff's home to seize the firearm.
69.

On November 27,2015,that action was settled by the parties without any court

order restraining anyone.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation Liable
70.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporate by reference, as iffully set forth herein,

all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-69 above.

71.

Defendants, each ofthem, intentionally disseminated private facts verbally, in

writing, court filings, and on the Internet, which directly harmed Plaintiff specifically the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-1 1-

Knowles v. Sonia

lawful possession of a firearm.

72.

Defendants, each ofthem, intentionally disseminated this information and knew

or should have known that this would cause Plaintiff's arrest, imprisonment and the search and
seizure of his home something a TRO application would not do without the private
information.
73.

Defendants, each ofthem separately, acted with malice aforethought intentionally

seeking to harm the Plaintiff by disseminating Plaintiffs private information about the
possession ofa firearm.
74.

Plaintiff was injured by the Defendants' actions in an amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

75.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as iffully set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-74 above.

76.

Defendants, each ofthem, intentionally acted knowingly and with malice causing

the Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

77.

Defendants, each ofthem, knew or should have known that causing the arrest and

imprisonment ofPlaintiff would cause Plaintiff great harm.

78.

Plaintiff was injured by the Defendants' actions in an amount to be proven at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

79.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as iffu11y set forth

herein, all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-78 above.

80.

Defendants, each ofthem separately, were knew or should have known that their

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-IZ-

Knowles v. Sonia

dissemination ofPlaintiff's private information to effectuate a TRO arrest, search &seizure

would not only interfere with Plaintiffls HPU work contract, other criminal justice teaching
opportunities, and his current benefits and potential for advancement with the military.
81.

Plaintiff was injured by the Defendants' actions in an amount to be proven at trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Rights Violations

82.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth

herein, all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-81 above.

83.

Defendant HPD has had a pattern and practice of releasing private information

about gun permits to non-HPD personnel or HPD personnel unauthorized to receive that
information in order to manufacture TRO based search &seizures without a warrant.
84.

Upon information and belief, there are many other persons who should simply

have been served a TRO, but Defendant HPD has developed a process for manufacturing TRO
based searches, and this has been going on for years.
85.

Upon information and belief, Defendant City had actual and constructive

knowledge about Defendant HPD's practice of effectuating warrantless search &seizures by

improperly disclosing firearms registration information, and did nothing.

I~TINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

General Negligence
85.

Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth

herein, all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-90 above.

86.

Defendant HPD had a duty not to disclose Plaintiff's Private information, and

COMPLAINT'FOR DAMAGES

-13-

Knowles v. Sunia

knew Defendant Sunia and other HPD employees had a practice of manufacturing warrant-less
searches &seizures based on the HPD TRO procedure.
WHEREFORE,Plaintiff prays for damages, including consequential damages, in
amounts to be proven at trial:
For special damages,including consequential damages,in amounts to be proven at
trial;
2.

For general damages according to proofthereof at trial;

For punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities; and

4.

For such further and additional relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

DATED:

2016

MYLES S. BREWER
Attorney for the Plaintiff
GORDON J. KNOWLES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-14-

Knowles v. Sunia

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

1~-~

GORDON J. KNOWLES,

~~ ~ 6 ~

CNIL,NO.

Plaintiff,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRTAT"

vs.
SHERYL SIJNIA,individually and as an agent
ofthe Honolulu Police Department; DIANA
NILES-HANSEN,individually; CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU,a municipal
corporation; the HONOLULU POLICE
DEPARTMENT,a department within the City
& County of Honolulu;
and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, GORDON J. KNOWLES,(herein "Plaintiff'), by and though his undersigned
attorneys, hereby demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable herein.
DATED: Honolulu, HI,June 3,,2016

MYLES S. BREWER
Attorney for the Plaintiff
GORDON J. KNOWLES

COMPLAII~IT FOR DAMAGES

-15-

Knowles v. Sunia

1N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII
Al ./

GORDON J. KNOWLES,

Cl V 1Lr 1VQ~

~,

!,"

<~
E~

`
~

`.

Plaintiff,
vs.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

SHERYL SUNIA,individually and as an agent

of the Honolulu Police Department; DIANA
NILES-F-IANSEN, individually; CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU,a municipal
corporation; the HONOLULU POLICE
DEPARTMENT,a department within the City
& County of Honolulu;
and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.

SUMMONS
TO:

SHERYL SUNIA,
DIANA NILES -HANSEN,
HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CITY &COUNTY OF HONOLULU.
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiffs' attorneys, whose

addresses are stated above,an answer to the Complaint which is attached. This action must be taken
within twenty(20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service.
If you fail to make your answer within the twenty day time limit,judgment by default will
be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
This stumnons shall not be personally delivered between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on
premises not open to the general public, unless a judge of the above-entitled Court permits, in
writing on this summons, personal delivery during those hours.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-16-

Knowles v. Sunia

A failure to obey this summons may result in an entry ofdefault and defaultjudgment against
the disobeying person or party.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii,

~'~"~~ - ~~ X015

P. NAfCAMQTO ~
CLERK OF THE AB

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

-17-

~~A~
COURT

Knowles v. Sunia