COM 0564.002 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

good on the disorderly conduct charge, so it was stressed in the testimony of the other store personnel that Ross had been yelling all the time when in effect the yelling came from the irate cashier who had attacked Ross. This dumb scenario did not work because Defendant Garcia, the deputy prosecutor dropped that charge in the first district court hearing in Kamuela for "harassment", see infra. KTA employs a security guard part-time from Wackenhut in Kona. There was no guard in the store during the altercation, which makes KTA liable for ALL that happened as supported by case law. 39. Although tape recorders are available in the Kamuela police station, Clark has stated that he never uses them. This is convenient if statements of suspects and witnesses can be molded at will and non-reading of rights by police can be denied. As already mentioned supra collusion among police and between police and prosecutors is rampant. This abuse of power in unconstitutional, especially when writing material of arrestees is impounded under the guise of it possibly being a dangerous weapon. GO should therefore mandate the use of tape recorders where available, as some caselaw does. Why else were they bought in the first place with public money? 40. The county police erases 911 tapes after two months, except when ordered to copy them first. Plaintiff timely requested Chief Carvalho, Defendant Jay Kimura and Defendant Janet Garcia to preserve all tapes relevant to this case and many other items. The tapes disappeared and no copies were made of the all-important 911 APB by Clark and further conversations among the police Defendants that would show their criminal violations herein averred. Nobody did anything to save this useful documentation as they were legally obligated, whether intentionally or by neglect an possibly conspiratorially. 41. All Defendants, whether Individually or by conspiracy. either pereonally or by respondeat superior. violated Plaintiff s right to due process by Iving: by not speaking when required: for illegal assumptions: misconatruing or omitting facts or witnesses: suggestive interrogatlona of witnesses: false or distorted reports: failure to fully investigate: pumoseful. reckless or negligent destruction of govem- ment records containing exculpatory information for Plaintiff. They are liable there- for under the Hawaii Constitution Art. I Sections 5.6 and 7 and corresponding arti- cles of the U.S. Constitution: USC 42 sections 1983 and 1985 and 18 USC 241. and 13