COM 0564.002 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ ~~~,~L To the Hawaii County Council, County Building -Hilo Hawaii From He ~~A~~."" Ross, K ha Hawaii RE Your Comm. No 564 on agenda of 3 Dec '97 ~~v~y legal counsel for 6 uolice in Civil No 97.452 3 December 1997 I refer to my communication 564.01 in this matter and add the following information that has transpired since and will be useful in your determination in executive session today The interaction going on between the Police, the Police Commission and Corporation Counsel in this matter obviously seems to border on corruption if it is not outright corruption and it behooves the Coucil to defer the request from Dep.Corp.Counsel Joseph Kamelamela in this matter for the following reasons, that I could clarify to you in the executive session: 1) If Kamelamela needs to discuss the amount to settle the case, I cannot sit in of course, but he has already taken steps to go into arbitration and it would be premature for him to ap- proach you for a settlement amount, because nothing is known to anybody until it happens. i 2) He also had aself-declared conflict of interest to act on behalf of all defendants and I harassed me to waste about $200 and a lot of time on personal-sheriff-service and had the 6 ~ police involved go to the police commission that decided on 14 November that the police must be given individual outside attomeys. If he approaches you about that, you ought to know that he has on 26 November 1997 filed legal documents in court on behalf of the police defendants (their Answer to the Complaint) that makes him their attomey, and no outside attorneys are necessary. He can and must further represent them in the suit and you need not allot any money for legal representation, even if he says that he does not plan to do so, because he must petition the court to be relieved as their attorney for a good reason, and until that happenes you should not waste public funds on this exceptionally confusing item. One wonders how much of the $600,000 that you shelled out for the other police squabble was really necessary. The trouble seems to be that you only talk to corporation counsels in your executive meetings, and must take their word for all this, while you have no way to verify any of their statements as to necessity. As I stated before mine is a well-docu- mented case and this time it saves you from unnecessary wasting $150,000 in public funds. I attach for your perusal copies of the Amended Complaint as Exhibit H, Kamelamela's 2 Answers to the complaint of 26 Oct. and 26 Nov. 1997 as Exhibits I and J, a partial trans- cript of my testimony in the police commission as Exhibit K, where I was unnecessarily Limi- ted to 5 minutes for testifying about a potential waste of $150,000. To illuminate that illegal 5-minute limitation I also enGose Exhibit L, a newspaper article of June 9, 1983, almost 14 years ago where 1 took 4 council members to the Ethics Board, also as Exhibit M 2 newspaper articles about a cosy unannounced illegal meeting of the police commission and the police in May 1996. And a follow up of recent Exhibit D, an unimpressing article by the police chief praising his police force, of last Monday, as Exhibit N. Then to show how flawed police commissioner Abdul's statement in Exhibit K was about the police just being as fallible as everybody else there is Exhibit O. showing that policeman Fragiau got probation for assault, while I was given a jail term for the petty misdemeanor of ` RECEIV® >rn. ~ IZ ~ County Coundl ~ ~ ~ - ~ r J )Y. l~St GO?NClL. I~IL ~+~~7