COM 0564.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4 were disVibuted to all Council members at the time. A copy of Plaintiffs Amended Civil Complaint No. 9752 for damages, dated 9/29/97 is also presently in the possession of Pol.Com., while another copy will be deposited with the Council shortly, for disVibution. 5. With the exception of Defendant Hickman all police were in unHorm and Plaintiff asstpries that all the averred actions by the police took place in the performance of their duties, as is Dearly expressed in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint as follows: [see also for reference Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 52D- 8 8 9J GENERAL Ar.i.RGATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF AMENDID COMPLAINT 10. Uffiil a will appear by discovery ~ one trial that such is not the ace, the indivi3ral defendants, Bove named, are alleged to have been acting within the course and/or scope of then e~ioyment a au rimes relevant herein. They were abo acting under the rnbr of their ehxted, appointed, assigned or otherwise acQrirod atRhasitis and antler the rnbr federa4 state and mnty law, se well as appiiabk rules of pro- dun, incheding the "General Orders" of the Hawaii County Polio Department. These orders are simply rules of procedure of the Hawaii County Police Department adopted and/or authored by the chief of police. 6. Admittedly all Defendants are mentioned in their official and private capacities but this is merely because in a recent case in Honolulu a policeman Rogelio Meta stole from and helped burglarize George and Mae Williams, while on duty and under the color of authority, which local Corporation Counsel (CC) took to pointing out possible conflicts of interest in the defense of this case, between the county andlor ottrer defendants. 7. Therefore CC wanted me to make service on everybody individually while in my opinion because this is a civil t:ase he must represent all under the County Charter, stating in Section 5-2.3: "The corporation counsel shall represent the county in all legal pror~edings I did not see a segregation of defendants as my obtpation and pointed this out in my letter to CC of 10/6/97, also quoting the Mate case inter alia as follows: The face that Dti~ arc fasmally sued m a pertaml capacity aside from their opacity as county emplo- yesa, was limped in item 10 of the Amended Compiaiot, (SFE HEREINAJJOVE>. [The Charter mandates]: civil kaal rsoceediaae acct shall perform aU other servios incident m the ei'Sx as may be required by law.... (scoot added). That means that you tee the attortey for all deteadaese in thu see in matters rdafei to their official powers and dmis and yonr own idler mt5rnts that bemfe Y4R informed the above sew, as their attorney, not to aoxpt service m behalf of other toasty employes, who mry oleo be sued ac individuals in this miter as per above. Yw have not taken inb oomideeation that thry are hat;ally erred as misty empbysxc and will asdy be erred as i~viduals whey it ie decided by the met that retpoodeat wperior dos not hold, even white en dnry in the eervia ~ the minty. ere has ban diec~taeed in a recent Memorandum Opinion ruled: VVat:awsc v. Ci~v & ..err., a al. slip op. 18844 of 9 June 1997. Msewhiie yaa arc their attorney by (see minty charter quohtion supra) and you have been served Remaim for me to provide the individual dew with a Dopy of the mnplaia and summons peewant to Role 4(d) (ti), ('n and (3), which an even be dine by mail. As I had no individual addrcsees however I had the documents delivered to the respective departments, where you interrupted individual delivery. 2 AL