Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0590.001 2008-2010
- a _ Phone. (808)-962-8272 1 YOSM40TO FAX: (808} 961-8912 Council member hm*jmo~Iwaii.hi.us District 3 _HAwA l couN FY COUNM CaJJNW aF HAWAI`I April l5, 2408 3`he Honorable Edvrd EL Ku United States A#taraeY PSKK FcdcVd BUdding 340 Ala Moana Blvd., #6-100. Honoluh4 HI 96854 Dear U.S. Amy KW.. Subject Goal Violations of State and Federal Laws that Resulted m the Flooding Damage in Mo from the February 2008 Rains; and Illegal Dumping of Solid Waste in the Puna District Pursuant to a request by Mr. Dan Cole, I am forwarding the enclosed communications from him regarding the above subject If you have any questions or require more information, gleam contact Mr. Cole at Ivir. Dan Cole P.O. Bog 630 Kea`au, HI 96749 (808) 966-9229 ~s Or Singly, _ C: -1i . 3 Yosbimoto, CouncA Membei , Ha mei Congty CQunit Count Distdct 3 ' JYtdwe Att acba[e~ cc: M . Dan Cob -1 Comm. No. EXMI 1 66R)" Ref. To: Ref. Rote 112 2009 CounryBaa 2s sow l xa`i 96rno BummAdd= Bea Fnmiga Bu 2°a Row,333 B3eaAvemm~lid, Hawaii 967211 D» ' ~ ~ ~lIIli18 P~~J PW~e Chief . 0 Hai7r S. KttbojW Dow Colmt ' Of 1[hwau Polire ChW PMCEDEPARThOW 344 KapiolW Sued -HiK Rmatt 9(720-399$ OM 935 3311 • Fm OW 91:1._ May 29,2W8 Ms. Janet L. Kamennan Special Agent in Charge U.S. DepartMwnt of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation 300 Ala Moats Bivd_ Suite-#4-230 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear This is a foilow-up -to the phone conversation Major Marshall Kaneharlua of the Hawaii Police Department had with Supervisory Special Agent Tom GWoso on May 29, 2008. During that conversation, Major Kanehaiiua had requested the.FBPs assistance In investigating #-a allegations of government corruption outlined do Mr. 'Dan Cole's letter dated May 6, 2008. Major Kanehallra was informed by SSA Giodoso that the FBI had already received a copy of the letber and is currently deciding on the appropriate action to be taken. Should- your office decide to Initiate an Investigation of alleged corruption within - our department, we are fufr prepared to a with such invelgation. Should you have any quesOms,.feel free to cordad Major Marshag Kanehalua of . our Administrative Bureau at (808) 96'l 2247. (:;NCEW K. MAHUNA POUCE CHIEF cm M : Dan Cole. -tbw2iti t o=W is an SWW Omorm* Pmvift and SViw r Class oI lY/5 William N. XiCt rdson school of Law Page 1 of 2 a CLASS OF 1978'r 1. Keoni K. Agard ' ) 2. Artemio C. Baxa 1 t 3. Russell Blair 1 4. Karen Napua Brown J 5. Nolan K.C. Chock 6. Connie C. Chun 7. George W. Cooper 8. Douglas A. Crosier 9. Charles.W. Crumpton 10. Dennis J. Davis 11. Jacquelyn N. desMarets 12. Philip Doi 13. Albert H. Esposito, deceased 14. Rosemary T. Fazio 15. Franell Fedor 16. Mary Midkiff Fiedler 17. Paul K.P. Fong 18. Gement T. Fujimoto 19. William J.N. Garcia 20. Frank Goto, Jr. 21. Barbara J. Greene 22. Ronald A. Harries Wednesday, September 30, 2009 A3 23. Diane D. Hastert 24. Joseph S.Y. Hu 25. Hilary K. Josephs Hawrart Tribune-Herald 26. Elton S. Kagimoto 27. Lois M. Kashiwada 28. Jefferry S. Kato 29. Linda M. Katsuld . S 30. Christobel K. Kealoha i Nakakuni now 31. Stan K. Kata i a U.S. attorney 32. Colin K. Kururata 33. Ann L. Kurihara HONOLULU (AP) 34. Joanne M. Lanham, deceased Florence Nakakuni 35. Marilyn P. Lee has been confirmed by J 36. Susan Lee RA, 37. Gerard D. Lee Loy the full U.S. Senate as h{t~h 38. A. Scott Leithead Hawaii's first female 39. Timothy J. Lui-Kwan r , US. attorney. 40. Rodney A. Maile k 41. Bruce A. Masunaga Nakakuni has been 1 s 4 42. Connie G.W. Meredith 2 an assistant U.S. attor- h 43. Wayne C. Metcalf, III ney in the District of _ .K r it" x 44. Florence T. Nakakuni +r}°~ Hawaii since 1985, and 45. Greg K. Nakamura t fyx she has worked as chief r' 46. Michael N. Nil 3 _Y 47. Lorna A. Nishimitsu ~r of the drug and Orga- 48. Sidney M. Quintal nixed Crime section the 49. M. Alan Rhodey t last four year!. 50. Carole R. Richelieu 51. JoAnn M. Sakato Nakakuni was-.norw- 52. Yvonne Shinmura (V) nated in July by. Presi- 53. Marguerite B. Simson dent Bamck Obama. She 54. Dwight Y. Takamine replaces Edward Kubo 55. Brian T. Taniguchi Jr., who has served in 56. Patrick Y. Taomae the post since 2001. 57. Maiden E. Temple 58. Janice E.C. Teramae Sen. Daniel` Inouye 59. Cynthia H.H. Thielen says her extensive legal 60. Gaylord G. Tom experience' will help her 61. Rory S. Toomey handle the responsibil- 62. Gary M. Tsuji 63. James S. Williston Ity, 64. Laureen K.K. Wong The Districtof Hawaii 65. Russell R. Yamada includes Hawaii, Saipan, 66. Russel H. Yamashita GUaffl and American 67. Reginald K.T. Yee 68. Gary M. Yokoyama ' 69. Robert S.N. Young Class of 1977 William S. Richardson School of Law Page 1 of 2 d ~ 6 1 CLASS OF 1977 1. Bruce E. Barnes 2. Pamela J. Berman Byme 3. Thomas J. Carney, Jr. 4. Dennis W.S. Chang 5. Gregory P. Conlan, deceased 6. Susan M. Connor 7. Thomas M. Culbertson 8. Madelyn D'Enbeau 9. Donald A. Dumont 10. Jack L. Durham 11. Jacqueline L.S. Earle 12. Jackie Mahl Erickson 13. James Tyler Estes 14. Daniel P. Finn 15. Stanley S. Fujimoto T: 16. Calvin J. Fukuhara w_ ?:h 17. Gary O. Galiher ' 18. Michael S. Glass f . y~ 19. Colleen Hanabusa 20. Jeffery D. Hermann 21. Jerry M. Hiatt 22. Lynn H. Higashi ' 23. Diane E. Hosaka 24. Susan M. Ichinose 25. Lance M. Inouye 26. Alexandra Kaan 27. Stuart A. Kaneko 28. Thomas K. Kaulukukui, Jr. 29. Kent M. Keith 30. Jo Kim 31' Kaipo Kincaid 32. Mervyn M. Kotake 33. Barry M. Kurren 34. Richard H. Lachmann 35. Michael M.F. Liu 36. Marcy Farden McLay 37. Ann M. Misura 38. Randall I. Morikawa 39. Roger S. Moseley 40. Scott Nakagawa, deceased 41. Craig G. Nakamura 42. David A. Nakashima 43. Linda LN. Oamilda 44. Stephen I. Okumura 45. Arthur A. Oshiro 46. Stephanie A. Rezents Warren J. Senda 48. Elbridge W. Smith 49. Brian D. Sugimoto 50. William E. Tagupa 51. Henry Tanji 52. Stephen E. Thomas (V) 53. Eileen T. Tredway 54. Dan K. Uyemura, deceased 55. Diana Van De Car 56. Uoyd X. Van De Car 57. Jonathan D. Waxman, deceased 58. Carol K. Yamamoto 10/13/2009 Class of 1979 1 William S. Kichudson School of Law _Page 1 of 2 CLASS OF 1979 1. Miriam Abelaye-Wolff 2. Charles V. Ala' ilima 3. Riki May Amano 4. Nancy M. Beckner 5. Patricia Takenaka Brady 6. Edward R. Brooks w 7. Robert M. Brown, II 8. Craig S. Cornell 9. Carolyn B. Doi 10. Charlotte J.K. Duarte 11. Raymond Duvauchelle 12. Don S. Dzura, deceased 13. C. Andrew Englehart, deceased 14. Jack S. Fritz 15. Ronald T. Fujiwara 16. Ken R. Fukuoka 17. Frederick D.O. Glannini 18. Ralph Glanstein, deceased 19. H. William Goebert, Jr., deceased 20. Reynaldo D. Graulty 21. Dona L. Hanaike 22. Akira Hino 23. Diane Hino ` 24. Diane L. Ho 25. Richard L Hoke 26. Elizabeth A. Ivey 27. Gerard A. Jervis 28. Aaron K.H. Kakinami ;29. Joseph K. Kamelamela 30. Robert M. Kamins 31. Christine Kurashige Y 32. Faye Kurren p 33. Anson K. Lee 34. Patricia Y. Lee 35. Steven S.C. Lim 36. George K. Lindsey, Jr. 37. Pamela K. Matsukawa 38. Cary S. Matsushige 39. Marilyn Moniz-Kahoohanohano 40. Lee A. Ohigashi 41. Ward F. Olsen, deceased 42. William P. Omellas 43. Nathan Paco 44. Susan K.Y. Park 45. Warren C.R. Perry 46. Lillian Ramirez-Uy 47. Ronald R. Sakamoto 48. Bert S. Sakuda 49. Beverly Wee Samestllma 50. Sherrie Thomas Seki 51. Terry T. Shintani 52. John A. Spade 53. Kenneth K. Takenaka 54. Owen K. Tamamoto 55. Norma D. Titcomb 56. Wilfredo O. Tungol 57. Theodore Y. Uyeno 58. Jill M. Venezian 59. Kali Watson 60. Michael A. Yoshida hUD://www.law.hawaii.edu/class-1979. 10/13/2009 DANIEL K. INOUYE . HAWAII COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, ~4 PRINCE KUHIO FEDERAL BUILDING CHAIRMAN 'United i bit A~ m ato ROOM 7-212,300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD SUBcoMMmEE ON DEFENSE, HONOLULU, HI 96850975 CNWRMAN SUITE 722, HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING (808) 541-2542 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1102 FAX (808) 541-2549 (202) 224-3934 - DEMOCRATIC STEERING AND COORDINATION FAX (202) 224^6747 101 AUPUNI STREET NO. 205 COMMITTEE HILO, HI 96720-4221 (808) 935-0844 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION FAX (808) 961-5163 JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING May 29, 2009 Mr. Dan A. Cole. P. O. Box 630 Keaau, Hawaii %749 Dear Mr. Cole: On behalf of Senator Inouye, who is currently away from the office, I would like to thank you for your correspondence regarding your concerns about corruption in the Hawaii State government. I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the office of Attorney General Eric Holder, for his comment on your concerns. I will be sure to share with you any response that I may receive. Thank you again for writing. Aloha, J L is ative to t JC:em U C T®: Cow James Araka~C- 18 Nov 02 . FROM: Dan Cole, phone 966-=9 PM SUBJECT: Flood Control in your District Aloha G Arakaid, 'bow 02, I am vvntiug 110 you in use to a artWe inlhe T Herald, Surly 17 Nov, -()n counal to-do list bait floods, finish }be, and the Chris Loos 7 Nov, article about the County being sued over flood damage Thmm&this letter I am "Offlci y", bringing to your won a flooding disaster vmit ing to happen in your district I am poin mFg out to YOU flw as a result of a Flood Debris auea Removal Project P-3535, the Palia Stream bed between. Kr' and Binoole St. was filled in and the stream path ditmxL This has been confimned by information obi from the Hilo office of &e Naturd Resoumes Conservation Service. - There is evidence that the Ginty ofliawaff md. the Fede al Govt w+ defies into payment for v that was new dome, and in fact the work pied may have created a Swam potectid Jor loss of life and property whnc-the nod great flooding stouon happens. In so far as this vwo & was cold less than two years ago the Cry maybe able to - bring lagat action the CAMP ctor to coarrect tins hazarrd and to ft streamto its natuW path, before the nod food. I am a g a 20 Feb 02, letter from the Cry of HawaiL Department of Public Works, that identifies the saes of conoem. It appears tom plx-ogrephs that the bu lk of the 688 c yards, over a** dmnptrnkkods, ofdebw mafaisi S& was removed from the iced. propedy vm 4kmmped back ir&o the bed. Vw C,on oc nor the Coudy cars veffy *af &e debris matedW was renwv ed fm®n the site and where it was of. Please coact me Ix additional. infautmation. Let us hope this hazard can be con+ected before the County becomes a Def wlaat in yet anodes law suit as a result of flood- damage. Aloha, _ Dan A. Cole Copy t+u: EkwW! TrrImm Iieadd, wlo attacbnumft EXHIBIT "A A R Page 1 of 1 000 WGHW50 PHFO 072329 FFWHFO HIC001-080230- /O.NEW.PHFO.FF.W.0005.090307T2329Z-090308TO23OZ/ /00000.0.ER.OOOOOOTOOOOZ.000OOOTOOOOZ.OOOOOOTOOOOZ.00/ BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED FLASH FLOOD WARNING NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HONOLULU HI 129 PM HST SAT MAR 7 2009 THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN HONOLULU HAS ISSUED A * FLASH FLOOD WARNING FOR... THE ISLAND OF HAWAII IN HAWAII COUNTY * UNTIL 430 PM HST * AT 122 PM HST... AUTHORITIES REPORTED THAT HIGHWAY 11 BETWEEN MILE MARKERS 2 AND 4 SOUTH OF HILO IS CLOSED-DUE TO WATER AND MUD ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. THE AREA OF RAIN CAUSING THE FLOODING IS NEARLY STATIONARY. PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS... A FLASH FLOOD WARNING MEANS FLASH FLOODING IS IMMINENT OR OCCURRING IN STREAMS...ROADS AND LOW LYING AREAS. MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND NOW. DO NOT CROSS FAST FLOWING OR RISING WATER IN YOUR VEHICLE OR ON FOOT. TURN AROUND DON/T DROWN. THIS WARNING MAY NEED TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND 430 PM HST IF FLASH FLOODING PERSISTS. LAT...LON 1972 15515 1973 15496 1959 15496 1959 15515 CRAIG httP://www.prh.noagLgov/data/BFO/FFVaWO.0903072329 3/7/2009 r`•°Lincoln S.T. Ashida Hang IGm Corporation Counsel Mayor Gerald Takase Assistant Corporation rEn'~ Counsel COUNTY OF HAWAII OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii %720-4262 • (808) 961-8251 Fax (808) 961-8622 June 4, 2004 Honorable Mark J. Bennett Attorney General Department of the Attorney General 425 Queen St. Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Mr. Bennett: RE: Dan Cote On May 28, 2004, our office met with Mr. Dan Cole, concerning a complaint of illegal dumping which occurred on the Big Island of Hawaii. In suns, Mr. Cole alleges an individual has committed illegal acts of dumping, which in turn has caused Mr. Cole financial loss. Mr. Cole presented what appeared to be considerable credible evidence to substantiate his claims. Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum generated by the Hawai i County Department of Public Works summarizing Mr. Cole's contact with the County. Mr. Cole was advised to seek the services of the Attorney General's Environmental Crime's Unit to initiate a complaint and have this matter properly investigated- - . We ask your assistance on behalf of Mr. Cole to look into this matter. Mr. Cole may be contacted at P.O. Box 630, Kea'au, Hawal'i 96749. His telephone number is (808) 966-9229. We thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, LINCOLN S. T. ASHI-DA Corporation Counsel End. - CC: an Cole (wlout end.) Gary Safarik, Councilman, (w(out end:) Bruce McClure, Director of Public Works (w/out end.) S: Departments/Cap CounseULSA Kim Con eVAetter to Ap re Cole 6.4-04fi-SRmr Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunky Employer and Provider E~H~T C0 UNTYCWHAWAU EITEEL OF TRANSAG TAB oafPnbMawas O Dn%doa - 25A8pUniSftyjct0fljKHWrdrtO96720 Phu= 961-23270Fam- M-WO Much 1g, 2W4 7~ aE Flood Debm Re'nwwd from i1I0 was Dan Cow FloodDeb s; Rival fraan Mo, Skew, Ccamaty Job No. P-3535, removed dew from surm beds at sever fiffi, s m is $i1o a wihe flood aN_ ovember 2oo0- ibalw0ject VMS fanded _ iaya~ by ~ R~o~u+oes toa~erva#iae. ~ ~ y a,ed ~ cont~ Lid 66 LLC ce Fury K 2001, based m a cwnp ve bid of $127,6r244n 5- Screctil W asiaai„'~Witt~e tad aII e t forduos safe c MnookilabMea skeet, au m i vm &wand a f atrsite to pwvi& Amd pwftcdm Oftbe car fm r~0ul INI e~ueBSkvx*. 200 cy vase dosed eft Sane oftbe c y vat to M- Cob and acme v, t to amalbw site near Ada Stimat. We arco t can if INS accoes" foram afiew-maNdsl fot MMUMM Skeet- 7. On Fe :y bs 2M. BfUCe Ron Tom, la N ,m his p"edy ash meet with Mn Ce and Stow, and confactdic ,,m MMd We mm3ed to M& CWjedwjje aft v&G *hHmdofmatte- M- Col b d a.4 doeesoinnd 2001. es 0 D Appmed as ? Rcmbm& MOMfWal ©For I= 0 AnwadasnOW D Mor a D Asd 00 Iteftnmed fortiori Own 0 RcMm conuftdpdWs 0 Farnview andco~mm~ Forbidsdw 0 REXAMM Q5 O rs. 1 CYi I M SIGNED ago 411*CM TArtjd 8,10M FLOOD DEBRIS REMOVAL FROM HILO STREAMS PLANS SOUTH HILO, HAWAII COUNTY AND STATE OF HAWAII JOB NO. P-3535 i t UTATION SHEET U. 9 aRTMENT OFAGRICULTURE ~ENG-523A Rev. 10-97 j NATUt'.. j.RESOU -ES CONSERVATION SERVICE TATS PROJECT PALAI STREAM OLV ST HOMES PROTECTrah BY rS DATE ~t 8 6D CHECKED BY DATE JOB NO.#ILO _ ZOO - O 5 SUBJECT I,tp SHEET OF 2 SIT "Csoy Rt=MC7v F- r D~SRtS 20 rI_ t Et.EC7'KtC LINE ---f~f~~' KIN00LE. ST GAS LINE. .k D E PAR S REMoJA L gSo D 30! 2 O sECr A • • ,t> F1 F I TOOT D RotE: sol.ne- oB~S s Name's''sr~.. BRIDGE L DtsposED of of srre.-: fob D 639tS SHA I1- e51? -6oMP 3 a N : . EJ- KILAUEA Lt d of T T'N AVE. WATER LINE NOOSE O z • SEC T B EROSION = Io PLAN VIE • 1 7~JE DE -1-S r No scAE OLU ST }t!}-1 f COMPUTATION SHEET U. S. D._ . IRTMENTOFAGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE ' V~~" NRCS-EKG-527A Rev. 10-97 STATE 1 / r PROJECT PALAI STREAM, AWAPUI41 ST - HOMES PROTECTIOK BY DS 1 DATE11 Gb CHECKED BY DATE JOB NO. i //LO - 2001- /D SUBJECT E 14 P b SHEET / ~ OF - h(OTE.: 130ME Dee$RtS SAA%_L BE_ DISpoSEp OF STREAM otit-SMe.. ~tS DVZ>?lkS SHALL se- COMPACT-61 FLOW 11,1 LIFTS oG l8; ~TTt~~ DIREcTtOt~ oF THE a PLAN VIE-W_. ° NO SCALE a ?HOMES a. ° o° DEBRIS _ ° - a ' 0 o ROCK WALL A " SECTION A F-- ~o ? W 20 • a' cl~ ° 2-Go C-% F~F]2//5 100 Q a• Q a a - 350 PI-A g S qT (3 U. S. DEF. 'MENT O AGRICULTURE COMPUTATION SHEET NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE NRCS-ENG-523A Rev. 10-97 STATE ) ( PROJECTALENA10 STREAM, MANELE ST 40HES PRorCO-h BY DI~I1 DATE ~r 14- CHECKED BY DATE JO8 NO. 141 LO - ?-00 / - 08. SUBJECT E p SHEET OF PLAN VIEW NO SCA L-E w Q~ 0 v ~0A D55RI5 SAA.LLL e>E Dis~sEO of ot~t-s+Tfz AS DjRFc7r-p By Tva eNC4 W EE R. TN +S CAS 2-12 DIP spaa~~. eIE (:OVA 20' EACH 10 5~ , 576-B I UL 20 0 ? HOMES SECTION A = 50 " % ODEBRIS j - r PLAN S 1iT 14 ' COMPUTATION SHEET U. S. G. .4'RTMEN'( OFAGRICULTURE NRCS-ENG-523A Rev. 10-97 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE STATE T PROJECT dAi~Jr;,,'.I ,c_ BY v DATE I CHECKED BY DATE JOB NO. SUBJECT C i SHEET I OF 2 I ML ~S R~t.ncNq~ = NGTE: t7~8R~S SHP.L1._ SE D~SR~>E ~ O F ON SI'f~ AS p t'R~cTED gv v~z C, INS .~5 ~ OLSPO AaL. Sl1ArLL 10 0 - CpM-PACT~t~ tN IS'' !-t FT5 . ? ~ O 4 --1 Ltj . p (x -4 Lj El A' er- I CIO 50 CIO Z SECTION A 0 • 50 . o y o° 10 PLAN VIEW / NO SCALE l ? HOMES ° DEBRIS O PLAW S~"~ t s~ = r ~ p m = Z 570 O r t rr n OOH i i • 1 is 1 61 A 4 a .,ilv, ` /aon ' - l,~ • ~arr~oo It ~ • `ma'y ~ i ' ( 4nA 1 } ~ • ~ 4 1 wWaoni ~ . rtuxi viu littp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/ii scurrent(Vo103_Ch0121-0200D/.. PART VIII. STREAM DIVERSION WORKS [§174C-91] Definition. In this part: "Stream diversion-works" means any artificial or natural structure emplaced within the stream for the purpose of diverting stream water. [L 1987, c 45, pt of §2] uttp://www.capitoL]iawaiLgovlnrscurr exW volo3_ChO 121-02Wll/... [§174C-93] Permits for construction or alteration. No person shall construct or alter a stream diversion works, other than in the course of normal maintenance, without first obtaining a permit from the commission. The commission may impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration of such stream diversion works will not be inconsistent with the general plan and land use policies of the State and the affected county. Nothing in this section shall be construed to be inconsistent with part IV. A person proposing to construct or alter a stream diversion work shall apply to the commission for a permit authorizing such construction or alteration. The application shall contain the following: (1) Name and address of the applicant; { (2) Name and address of the owner or owners of the land upon which the works are to be constructed and a legal description of such land; (3) Location of the work; (4) Engineering drawings showing the detailed plans of construction; (5) Detailed specifications of construction; (6) Name and address of the person who prepared the plans and specifications for construction; (7) Name and address of the person who will construct the proposed work; (8) General purpose of the proposed work; and (9) Such other information as the commission may require. [L 1987, c 45, pt of §2] ale [§174C-953 Abandcssfin owner of any stream diversion work ent. Any ~.t wishing to abandon or remove such.work.shall first obtain a permit to do so from the commission. [L 1987, c 45, pt of §21 [§1740-941 Completion resort. Within thirfl of days s after dthe iversion completion of construction or alteration lesion work, the perm-ittee shall file a written statement of completion with the commission. The commission shall designate the form of such statement and such information as it shall require. [L 1987, c 45, pt of §21 v:Sr 'kA is '4~x vabed 540IM-Depawemimt of Agrkaftom Natural Resources C*Isenr .WW Service W Ala Moana Blvd, Room 4-118 Honolulu, Ht 9$850 June 5, 2008 Mr. Dan A. Cote P.O. Box 630 Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Dear Mc Cole: SUBJECT: Freedom of lnf0nnati0R Act (FOIA) Request _ Food Debris Removal from Hilo Streams, Job No. P-3535, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated May 2, 2008, received in our office on May 5, 2008_ As requested, a complete and thorough search of all records was completed and there were no documents relating to (1) applications, pefm ft and approves for the construction of the stream diversion works in Hilo Streams; and (2) written approval from the S Ae Director of Heem for - th e dtsposai of solid waste, flood debris, outside of an approved Solid Waste Management Sysm. The Proposal, Plans, and Specifications for Flood Debris Removal from Hilo Streams, Job No. P-3535, is enclosed, in aabrdance.wifh the FOtA. Please be advised that this Job was issued and contracted by the Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, so the may be the agency you need to contact for your requested-informafi . they If you have questions, please tall our office at (808) 541 26oo ext 118. Sincerely, KEITH Y. HARADA FOIA Officer, Padfic Islands Area Enclosure cx ; wrence Yamamoto, Director - PtA, NRCS, Honolulu, HI :Merman White, PC, Civil Engineer, NRCS, Hilo, Hl Helpft People Help the Land An G*W Oppaftft PewAft and Employer Harry Kim ' • Bruce C. McClure Mayor Director Jiro A. Surnada Caunt offf "C fum- -t Deputy Director DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street Suite 7.1fdo, Hawaii 96720-4224 (808) 961-8321- Fax (808) %1-8630 w".co.hawaiLhims April 1, 2008 DAN A. COLE : - P.O. BOX 630 KEAAU, HI 96749 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - 3/26/08 This is in response to your March 26, 2008 letter. We do not have any permits, records or documents relative to your request. so we are unable to furnish the following: 1. Copies of permits and all other documentation per HRS 174C-93. 2. Copies of completion report per HRS 174C-94. 3. Copy of approval from the Director of the State Health Department as required by HRS 342H-30(c). Should you have any questions, please contact Galen Kuba, at 961-8422. 13RUCE C. MCCLURE, P. E. Director of Public Wols c: Corp Counsel - Ivan Torigoe County of Hawaii is an Equal Oppwtnnity Provider and Employer. ~ t OF ~~JG9 Bruce C. McClure Harry Kim Director Mayor / Jiro A. Sumada M O Deputy Director OF (IT %LL'ountia Ulf paafmaii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224 (808) 961-8321 • Fax (808) 961-8630 June 13, 2008 Mr. Dan A. Cole P. O. Box 630 Keaau, HI 96749 SUBJECT: HAWAII STATE UNIFORM PRACTICES ACT, HRS 92F, REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT RECORDS Project: Flood Debris Removal from Hilo Streams Job. No. P-3535, County and State of Hawaii In response to your letter (dated June 9, 2008) requesting written orders of the engineer, we provide the following. A complete and thorough search of our records was conducted and we could find no written orders of the engineer within our files in reference to "directing -the contractor to dispose of 4,029 cubic yards of flood debris on-site." The project engineer the subject project was Paul Nash who is no longer working for the County. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Engineering Division at 961-8327. Ff .`-cam RULE C. MCCLURE, P.E. Director County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider- and Employer Print Page 1 of 2 From: Dan Cole 0 To: Simmons, Eric Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:31:22 AM Cc: bford@co.hawaii.hi.us; dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us; donishi@co.hawaii.hi.us; dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us; enaeole@co.hawaii.hLus; genriques@co.hawaii.hi.us; jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com; jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us; kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us; kgreenwell@co.hawaii.hi.us; mazie.hirono@mail.house.gov; phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; robert.n Jones@us.army.mil; Deborah A POH Solis; Edward Kubo; Glenn Beck; Peter Sur; Steven Slagle Subject: Re: Hilo, Hawaii FEMA LOMAR Aloha Eric, Thank you for informing that you have received the satellite image and supporting information about the illegal levee that was constructed on the Waiakea Stream just above Hilo, Hawaii which threatens the lives, welfare and property of the residents down stream. Please note that in my email to you it should have read that these structures were build WITHOUT the required State required permits. Dan A. Cole Telephone: 808-966-9229 From: "Simmons, Eric" <eric.simmons@dhs.gov> To: Dan Cole <cole hawaii@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:11:36 AM Subject: RE: Hilo, Hawaii FEMA LOMAR Dan, I received your email. Eric Simmons, CFM National Flood Insurance Program FEMA Region-IX (510) 627-7029 From: Dan Cole (mailto:cole hawaii@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 2:35 PM To: Simmons, Eric W Subject: Hilo, Hawaii FEMA LOMAR Aloha Eric, As per our telephone conversation this date I will start emailing you the evidence of Illegal Stream Diversion Works in the Hilo, Hawaii area, these structures were build WITHOUT the State required permits, engineering, or any recorded documentation as to their location and dimensions, and a challenges to the accuracy of the FEMA Digetal Flood Rate Insurance Maps of this area to be corruptly and deliberately false and deceptive I will be sending you additional documented evidence as to how and where the Stream Beads of Hilo were altered as a result htq)://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=0&.rand=468s6891afi2i 6/17/2009 Print Page 2 of 2 of acts and action of corrupt County of Hawaii Officials and the conspiracy to defraud the governments of the United States and the County of Hawaii for the illegal dumping of Flood Debris removed from the Hilo Streams in a 2001 Federally Funded contract. k If you check the location of the levee on a Topographic Map you will notice that this Levee would need to be only a foot or two high to effectively prevent the Waiakea Stream at that location to follow its natural flood path into the Waiakea Water-Shed and Forest Reserve. There is a very unique geologic formation where the levee is located, you will notice that just at the end of the 1,450 foot structure the Waiakea Stream begins an 600 foot drop into the Waiakea Uka area of Hilo just 11,000 down stream, and it appears that a water flow gage station just down stream from the levee has been disabled or inactive for a number of years, this levee may have been started in the M-80`s and identified by Hawaii County Public Works as an undocumented road, which appears to have been augmented with the Flood Debris from the 2001 Hilo Stream clearing project P-3535 illegally dumped. If you check the historic records, and the first aerial photos taken taken for topographic mapping in 1954 you will see the historic development and the increase flooding of the Hilo area following additional augmentation of the levee over the years, and how long time generations of residents have no history before the late 60"s of the flooding in the current aces that have received extensive flood damage. Aloha, Dan Cole 808-966-9229 http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gr-O&-rand=468s6891afi2i 6/17/2009 .lS j J f f MI .r rte . ? ? MI` lie- fu~VV1 1 ry¦T •y~I 4 r~ y-} •Y` .J;1 p ~,M r I r kII•4~~~yS.Jhi.-~..~f.. A o yi g ?O ' ,r lot ~;..'l~ ~~Ttift c J. r Z 1~ fj + c Thy. N. S v 'ir v ~ Q ~ • / I hV r. 3 y U Y k~ `:SAS. a: ~1I f it W A4 CCU s x"-'~. ° h it 1 ~ 44 1 L 'F 4Y hlr t Y5!.4 a fi, yN + fi /k n. ryfA +Ya•., cf o- -d.. 'f41 ~`~Y~ j~ t ~ • ~ k 4 :-y~'(•r,~~, r lt~'°tiI ~},''t' . ~ i_,G ~ f ~ $ rE. Y r~ y _ f t'CSf` 1. ~f sr ~ tti ~*~x~° ~ # .1.-'•`~l-~ T ~t ~ ~ Yy}~~f,{N''~ [`LM y S.7 } i _ h-~1 t #ti~"~y ' s [ YJ ~ f~'} ~ ~ { ? t~",~~y ~ 1 r r ~ ~ t YF r 1 1 nL. Z+t 1 C r-` .l S [.l S• . r r 16 't Y lltt I I L •t i - r I , v y. •Y Y' r r l~ Y 'L t r t - It. 17 4'. L IY r ',.~...J ~~i, ,4'+ „rat^4 'Tg' _ ~~"w ~-'T:,"~X' ~ _.",~r- f ~L~ Ttv~~f1 .r 4. ~w ytr~11T~ hhhYYY s~L''~1j2 ~ ff ~ try,} t~ ~~a1y .t `4~;:,• 7 r'~i 'y..:. .~'5~.~~s~ ~ )~;y~ 4;_4,..r h. s. Vt. t ~ y ' C ~ ,'~'ti,3Y. ^a • tn. r . {4 ,ice ` a ~ ~ ~ _ .ti L - f rim' i a ~ ; •f y' ~ i. f r . o . r ~u . I I Id, aY t ~ `r 7hSS +.~SiC Y. 1•rC 1 1,~ • ' {M'T.pF t~.h t A h yin _ ? is s ~ 4.~{T W i .r. N 00 CD n n (7D = C) in- ~ a d a c a cn ~y o a G (7 D ~rf x r' (-D o? CD rGo Q.~ C O \J C-D Rn~ 7~~'~ moo" c~ L~ 2 F, o a can a l ~c q,,Q CD tiV c cc 0 C° O `3 p co oarco~'°rnR-mF,F D° oo . G o yo (D °j° a Ica a Qq 0- 17) 0 ~ CD ~ J~ o: o o (D --q `a f r ° n o -,-j C) 60 PO q b ca. =3 (D ~S CD tri <a ~j Cr1 l1 day CL ° G N V' Q' vGi G (D C7 ` co p, G c N p, C) EL F-i • ~ o ° r~ ~p R p ~ y ~ ?T+ ~~1 ~ ~ coo . o. a o ~ p I _ rt Print Pagel of 3 From: Dan Cole (cole_hawaii@yahoo.com) To: abe2010_1@yahoo.com; enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us Date: Sunday, July 26,2009 11:28:21 AM } Cc: bford@co.hawaii.hi.us; dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us; donishi@co.hawaii.hi.us; dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us; genriques@co.hawaii.hi.us; jarmstrong@hawaiitribune-hemld.com; jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com; jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us; kgreenweU@co.hawaii.hi.us; mazie.hirono@mail.house.gov; phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; robert.njones@us.army.mil; Edward Kubo; Eric Simmons; Glenn Beck Subject: IMPEACHMENT OF COUNCILMEMBER NAEOLE Aloha Abe & Emily, If you want to rid the County Government, and Council District #5, of Aunty Emily just get me the 200 or so signatures fora Impeachment Petition which I will be happy compose for you. Council member Naeole is using her elected authority to protect the criminal activities of an Enterprise of corrupt government officials that are engaged in racketeering activities in violation of Federal and State RICO statutes, that place the safety and welfare of the people of Hawaii in jeopardy. Why don't you ask Aunty Emily about the current investigation by the Office of Information Practices for her part in criminal and willful violations of Hawaii's Sunshine Law in her appearance and defense of a Petition filed against her with the Hawaii County Board of Ethics, and her making of false statements in her sworn affidavit before the State Circuit Court in her Impeachment Hearing, ask her about what she knows and knew about corrupt Police Officers in Puna, with the aid of the County Prosecutor's Office and Judges of the Third District Court of the Third Circuit knowing and knowingly deprive the people of Hawaii of their State and Federal Constitutional rights of Due Process and Rights of Property where by Police Officers in Puna issue bogus Traffic Citations to non local senior citizens for leaving the scean of an accident they knew nothing about or did not occure, apparently as part of an insurance scam, where the County Prosecutor's Office arraign citizens they know are innocent and the Judges find the citizens guilty by dening citizens the ability to present evidence through use of trickery in the biased enforcement of rules of the Court, making the citizens or their insurance company libal for damages, or how the Hawaii County Police Department violated Hawaii's Freedom of Information Act to rig the November General Election in her favor. Do you think Aunty Emily would have been reelected if the people of her District knew about the verifiable information and evidence contained in Impeachment Complaint filed in the Third Circuit Court, or a criminal complaint in the Hawaii County Prosecutors Office against her lawyer, which is apparently being covered up by County Prosecuting Attorney IGmura, for her lawyer's actions before the Court of Judge Greg Nakamura resulting in Council member Naeole's Impeachment Complaint being dismissed, and how Judge Greg Nakamura violated State and Federal Constitutional Articles by making a legislative decision from the Bench in the judgment. Call the State Office of Information Practices 808-586-1400, ask for Jennifer Brooks and ask her for the status of Investigation (S INVES-P 10-1), or go to the Hawaii County Corporation Counsel Office, -ask for Mary Crosson, phone 961-8251, and request to review all evidence and documentation submitted for Petitions Nos. 2009-2, 2009-3, 2009-4, and 2008-11, and if you want to see how Aunty Emily is using her elected position to protect organized corruption of the Judges Metcalf, Smith, and Nakamura, with the knowledge of Chief Judge Ibarra, you can go to the Circuit Court Clerks office and ask to look at all the documents, filings and related Pxint Page 2 of 3 correspondence resulting from the Impeachment Complaint CIV No. 08-01-0175, or contact the U.S. District Court for the records of Case No. 05-00325 JMS-BMK, or contact the Inspector p' General of Homeland Security for the status of Case ID# DHS090317006 showing how a group ' of corrupt County Officials, with the participation of Council member Naeole, Yoshimoto, and others are covering up the corruption of the FEMA Digital Insurance Rate Flood Maps of the Hilo area resulting from illegal dumping and illegal construction of levees and other stream diversion works for the purpose to obtain a fraudulent FEMA LOMAR, Letter of Map Revision, that takes or keeps certain properties out of flood areas making them prime for development, I IN, and how these actions contributed to the multimillon dollars of flood damage in February 2008, or you can contact the National Insurance Crime Bureau and ask for information on ~"r>Case ID#NICB 09-02314, I am sure you will construe that corrupt County officials created the fir Flooding problems for the purpose of obtaining tens of millions of dollars in Federal money to ,'y build unneeded flood protection projects for the purpose of lining the pockets of contractors with probable kickbacks to County officials. Contact Hawaii County Council Chairman J Yoshimoto and ask the status of his request to U.S. Edward Kubo about the illegal activities surrounding a conspiracy of government officials to defraud the County and Federal governments for payment for work not done and the illegal disposal of over 500 dump trucks of debris from the 2001 Federally funded Contract P-3535 to clear Hilo Streams of flood debris, or you could just contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Honolulu Division and ask for FBI Special in Charge, Thornton, phone 808-566- 4300, or fax her at 808-566-4470, and ask her what is the FBI's status on the thousands of pages of verifiable, and uncontested documentation and evidence showing RICA activity in Hawaii County, and try contacting Mayor Kenos and ask him what he knew and when he'knew about the dellbert and willful violations of Hawaii's Sunshine taws surrounding the actions of Corporation Counsel Ashida in Extortion and Blackrnad as recorded in the minutes of the 10 June 2009 meeting of the Hawaii County Board of Ethics, ask Mayor Kenoi for a copy of a 4 June 2009, twenty-six page documentation faked to him, and verified as received by his office In recorded telephone conversation, about organized government corruption and racketeering activities In Hawaii County, and his personal Involvement in. neglect to prevent in blackmail and extortion as committed by Lincoln Ashlda in his May 5, 2009 letter to Board of Ethics Chairmen John Dill with the attached exhibits, and Lincoln Ashida's recorded testimony before the Board. If you think our County Government is not corrupt, I call your attention to the National News about the forty, (40), plus government officials in New Jersey and do you think the people of New Jersey didn't think there was government corruption when the government officials told them there wasn't, and where the government officials called any citizen that said otherwise, "whacky"? If you are asking yourself why you havent heard anything about all these investigations in the Hawaii Tribune Herald or the West Hawah Today, then you should call the publishers and ask them as the Stephens Media group has had all this information but for some reason refuses to inform their readers, you may ask yourself the next time you dispose of dead fish, do you reW want to dishonor the memory of the fish by wrapping them In these newspapers? -Contact me with the wired number of signatures to Impeach Council member Naeole, and as a bonus I will rid you of additional corrupt County, State, and Federal officials through httD 1/us-=2-mad Yahoo.com/dc/launch?.oc=O&xand-d67aag4n5a5dr 7/26/2009 H. TO: Hawaii County Council 6 October 2009 Dominic Yagong RL i t D Donald Ikeda J Yoshimoto 2009 OCT 7 Phi 8 39 Dennis Onishi Emily Naeole G'L 3 . ` Y C, Guy Enriques - (3UNZ Y < fF HAA' ll Q O C M. Brenda Ford z rn , Kelly Greenwell Pete Hoffmann FROM: Dan A. Cole rv' fti r P.O. Box 630 _ Keaau, Hawaii 96749 • RE: 7 October 2009 Testimony in opposition to reorganization of the Hawaii County Council with Emily Naeole as Vice Chair. Aloha Council Members: If I am unable to appear before the Hawaii County Council on 7 October 2009, I am submitting the attached documentation in support of my opposition of the reorganization of the County Council with Emily Naeole as Vice Chair. I am currently being threatened, extorted, and blackmailed by officials of the County of Hawaii, to include Mayor Kenoi, Prosecuting Attorney Kimura, Corporation Counsel Ashida, and Hawaii County Police Officers and Officials to prevent my presenting evidence of criminal violations of State and Federal RICO Act statutes, as you know Councilmember Naeole has labeled me, "whacky" as her part in the smear campaign against me. The appointment of Emily Naeole as Vice Chair is part of a conspiracy of corrupt County Officials to defraud the governments of the County of Hawaii and the United States of tens of millions of dollars in fraudulent Public Works Flood Control Projects, and to approve and adopt fraudulent and corrupt FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps giving privileged property owners windfall profits. As you can see by the attached documentation Council Chair Yoshimoto and Council Vice chair Hoffmann have knowledge of the corruption and would probably be absent when the votes are taken to adopt the fraudulent and corrupt FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps, and the vote to commit millions of dollars in matching funds for fraudulent flood protection works, when in just a few hours a bulldozed could remove the apparent levee at the end of DeLima Way that prevents the Waiakea Stream from following its natural flood path into the Waiakea Water Shed and Forest Reserve instead being forced into the Waiakea Uka populated areas, and cause the 2008 flooding damage and the soil erosion that blocked the Hilo Harbor with slit. COPY The Hawaii County Public Works Department did not obtain the required State and Federal approvals, or permits required to construct these Stream Diversions Works, when they conspired to defraud the County of Hawaii and the United Stated government for paying for the removal and legal disposal of the flood debris removed from the Hilo Streams in 2001. In early 2001 the County of Hawaii Public Works Department supervised the dumping of over 500 dump trucks of flood debris into Hilo Stream bed systems to create a flooding hazards for the purpose to justify a request to the.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for tens of millions of dollars in Public Works Projects. The illegal Stream Diversion Works constructed under the supervision of the County of Hawaii were responsible for, or contributed to, the multi-millions of dollars of flood damage in February 2008, and the two occurrences of slit blocking in the Hilo Harbor since 2001. Until such time as the status of, or the completion of, the numerous County, State and Federal investigations identified in the attached documentation, it is requested that no reorganization be attempted by the Council, and no vote be taken to adopt the FEMA Maps or commit County monies to US Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects. Sincerlly; Gam. Dan A. Cole FAX TRANSMITTAL: Twenty= Six,..(25),: pages#s#aL 4 June 20o9 RE: 10 June 2009 Board of Ethics meeting to publicly expose organized government corruption and Racketeering activities in the Hawaii County Government, and the personal knowledge of aforesaid activities by Mayor Kenoi and his involvement in r support of illegal activities_ TO: William P. Kenoi, ESQ. JD6730, Phone: 808-961-8211, FAX 808-961-6553 Mayor, County of Hawaii COPY TO: FBI SAC Thornton, Phone: 808-566-4300, FAX 808-566-4470 HI Gov. Linda Lingle, Phone: 808-586-0034, FAX: 808-586-0006 Hawaii Tribune Herald, Phone: 808-935-6621, FAX: 808-961-3680 PAN MEDIA (copies to above faxed without attachments) FROM: Dan. A. Cole, Phone 808-966-9229, email: Cole Hawau(a)vahoo corn P.O._Box 630 KeaaU, Hawaii 96749 Aloha mai! Mayor Kenoi: As per my recorded telephone conversation with your staffmember this morning I am faxing you the attached twenty-four pages of information that identifies the criminal activities in. violation of State and Federal Racketeering statutes of public officials within the County of Hawaii, to include your personal involvement m violations, by and through your knowledge and neglect to prevent, a criminal conspiracy to violate IM §707-764 Extortion (1)(exi), as identified by Hawaii County Police Report No: 008039254-001, 002, as identified in the attached documemation, which has been sent to the Hawaii County Prosecutors Office to be covered up, and apparently used to extort and/or blackmail public officials to include but not limited to Judges and Officers of the. Court of the State Court of the Third Circuit. Please note that the Department of Home Land Security has opened an Inspector General's investigation into the corrupt mac cumey of the FEMA Digital Insurance Rate Maps of the Hilo area. RE: 1D# DHS090317006, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau has also opened an investigation Case ID# NICB 09-032314, and has sent an investigator' to Hawaii. It is my understanding from the conversation with the NICB Investigator that a Bulletin has been sent out to all member insurance companies, it would also appear that various buurance Commies may begin legal actions to recover monies paid out for property damage claims in so. far as the County of Hawaii admits in Federal Court records, RE: Case No. 05-00325 JMS-BMK, District of Hawaii, that it used flood debris material to construct illegal flood protection works directly upstream of the areas receiving major flooding damage for which claims were paid. The Angust 2U0g rFMA L(} "Ak, Letter of h%P R&v,3,0n, hu, and is being dWtnged as co fl inaccurate clo to the altemtivn of tha Hilo }tta„a freest the M,- al duiupiag and eouslructibtt of Stream Di ersion Works-built from the thoumnds cubir, 1 yards Of ffi$ MAI remnveti %M IU0 Stream " in 2001 under a Federal and Corm Funded contract The straeture identified by satellite images on the Waiak County above Hilo at the end of DeLima W ea Stream Strewn from folio ay' appears to be a levee that prevents the Waiakea wing its natural flood path into the Waiakea Water Shad and Forest Reserve forcing all the streams flood waters into the Waiakea Uka area in, or contributing to, the flood damage and the massive amount soil erosion resulting ~ in blocking of the Hilo Harbor and the levee the slit appears to have been illegally constructed, or augmented by material illegally disposed of from the Hilo Stream clearing project as described in the attached documentation, which resulted in or contributed to the multimillion dollars of properly damage from the February 2009 flooding in Hilo, and has,- and continues to plane the lives and property of the People of Hawaii in jeopardy. Should my Petitions be allowed public smutiny, the names and actions of County, State, and Federal officials that have conspired to defraud the County and Federal governments, and have imowing and knowingly conspired to threaten and extort my silence, to include the active participation of the Hawaii County Police Department, the Hawaii County Counsel, the Hawaii Mayor's Office, the Hawaii County Prosecutors Office, and Judges and Officers of the State Courts of the Third Circuit, will be exposed. . Mayor Kent, if you dispute any of the aforesaid statements, or wish to discuss this matter prior to my appearance before the 10 June 2009, meeting of the County Board of Ethics you may contact me. It is understood that if I am not contacted by you, as Mayor, and in your Official capacity prior to my appearance before the Board, it will be understood in accordance to the "assenting-silence doctrine", that you do not dispute any of the plethora of evidence, information or assertions in the demon. you have received this date. Your neglect to take action to ensure the welfare of the People of Havmii, and to restore the Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of the people you represent will be accepted as your admission and confession as to your participating in criminal violations of State and Federal RYCO statutes. -Tbank you for your attention in this matter. I wish you well, Mr. K,enoi. Lau Lima, 4ADan. Cole United States Citizen < 020 10201 020 AMEND ED tHIRt7 =~f! 7lim NOMMAND i1T0TiCiy OR3 Ai d) iiloncEra at tlo as-~-oye p rao9-i#1 CR~3[rnDt i~tott~ED1gCECl7'o -Tcr S ESTATE OF DON KAZUO &AK~TAy atca Qo» P_ i+47c a3-1=Q154 ED 4& CHANDLER DOUGLASI an WE— y I orrof U*.Caui ' ' # st .N£~: 10 I ate arigi3 t73Et9iA = - ~ LiAVU wtlo a 7~' rfo 28 #lat . cAednn`y[IB ' Street, tirTo. Hawrafi s672D tappted ~s mar 8~m~s, - veaESeFd QOfVt1A L: >a _ pra s~ .P'IfErrkZyBToi h85g ~{1 Meedi, deshos~Ijjjjjjjjje Per 1118 ff Wo . ;Ilaar~t i~Ts a 'ham ' Ali S-a • Dfor~No6ce P• to Ste: 'b'~.t ~1`Al of ifie ~a ~ ¢ _56[Y3-204 am+ste a.P fa # ~[ie- es S: for AU crecfttors Bre est~a ~sols lfest~ead arehereby twtfTtedla Pms' "t cSwNt h' S-mad _emb f ?d#~presaot#lerdaaimws io1#3$N ~nOper vouclgs~awLtt~utyyacad ~y~ F Y...{„-m -_-of, VJG'~o~FR~/`. y -Cy"`~ ' ~^cYM4R3(.~5~ffi~ f (i. ;--R,~y - 1 wjclow rm, ft-Wed-b-, Y.~v-~i~]NrLyIg.1~,~WaswMi~ 'fast IMMEL ` - DATM Mo :6larva~ {7 f3ATE0t IOto:i i " s WOW& X, r OKAM070 Bc~fAilAi4M(3iD. -D - 7~NEIFSATLAi1N Amt z. RO -ickaxwOiO) _ 96721 5492x1 Hav,rarc T ,may 29 ffir - ~ 12 2ti09) ' ~Fla~~" , of Vetdde tiai?Sa(e Ijass4ioirlRLlc.tiEA274 13Ci€ENIEOF „c twraxtf TO: C: irs wrepkedvelncle+a~ beso&fmco~r WON w nQiC£ Ruled. `(6242rf7rd~rateFf ~rd+ aee 20 IL!_ip6pg law- _ 1116' - ?4 9Xk a y *y la~1-`et die fiafpd b ~1 ; : ~ ' _ P Im~l-sc- : _ ~ ~!?~srci/oram~floo~iuloeiir~e .~'~~a~ # ea s G ~Sf a ava fiv r + xa Jo sla IASSESSMEMW Vol- :snot 1t~1 CSdC. iL 1rAGJ:: N ~loobrlr~lo§ r -A-I afgh OA(MAbrela~d COFTt "grade ed 4 s y e A-9 -ft ::(next mS- Mlil6i Y Pad pruer W r arr Blow iordable~t~ $t Bed[ z Abuse {yA -tN Mod pri+rdteroget#ol•~- ~ &oTcml- 5 "T 3 February 2007 INFORMATION PAPER -SUBJECT: Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, island of Hawaii 1. Purpose: To provide information on the subject project for public information meeting to be held on February 14; 2007. 2. Points of Major Interest and Facts. a. The Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction project was requested by the County of Hawaii-on Apri13, 2001 as a result of severe floods that occurred on November 2 - 3, 2000 that caused significant damage to several residential areas on the island of Hawaii including the Waiakea Stream area of Hilo. Homes near Kawailam Street Bridge, Kupulau Road and several areas in Waiakea Uka, were damaged due to . flood waters exceeding stream capacities. b. A reconnaissance study of Waiakea-Stream was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and was completed on September 2001. Several potential flood damage-reduction measures were identified that include channelization, detention basins and diversion channels. The reconnaissance study recommended proceeding with a detailed feasibility study. C. A Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) was signed-by the County of Hawaii and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May 2004. The Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction project is authorized to be conducted under the Continuing _ Authorities Program (CAP), Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-858), as amended. d. The purpose of the feasibility study will be to identify the flood problems and to formulate potential alternative plans that reduce flood damages and to document the results in a decision document as the basis for project construction authorization. The alternative plans will be evaluated in detail- for engineering adequacy, economic viability, environmental and public acceptability and protect sponsor support, e. An aerial topographic survey was completed in January 2006. Activities that are scheduled to be completed in 2007 include hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, economic analysis, alternative plan formulation and initial. environmental coordination. The draft feasibility report is scheduled for completion June 2008. STATE OF-HAWAII COUNTY OF HAWAII ) ~ - AFFIDAVIT OF`JIRO & SI. MAD JIRO A. SUMADA, Mingrffst y sworn on this oath, dVoses and ; Th he is the Deputy Dkec for in 8t for the C~ Haw.,C Sate of Hawaii; that as such Engineer, he states that the FLOOD DEBRIS REMOVAL FROM MLO STREAMS, South HBO, Hawad, Job No P-3M5, has been mspmbd and he does henry Cwtff y that an F warlc done in the eonsbuc n se&i above-named job has been PwWned in a worWnanl a the mod, FLOOD DEBRIS OVAL FROM HILO STREAMS, South Hilo, Ham, Job No. P-3635, ate, was sa&dbc tm* cmvleted on the 3rd day of Ate. 2001, in accordarme with the sP ons ftwefior and ap done mad in a w mknwddce nmvw as requkW and mWesh4 and YOM a rt does hereby amept the sair. aS Corm as of AApto s, 2Wt. RO SU IADA - r Sum anct sworn to before me this Z day of Apn'l, A.D. 2001 Vabrh AL- H. Ta*tK to Notary PAC, Slate of Hawa My cwmTdsWon eWees N k 9.20()4 cbPY E/1HIENT "N" L• incM S.T. Ashida Harry ICim. COrp~orafion Counsel Mayor Gerald Takase Assistant Corporation Counsel COUNTY OF HAWAII OFFICE OF THE-COIPO 'ICON COUNSEL. 101 AuRuni She4 See 325 • Imo. i 9672042s2 • (am) 961-&51 . Fax (am) 961-8622 June.4, 2004 Honorable Mark J. Bennett Attorney General Department of the Attomey General 425 Queen St Honolulu, Hl 96813 Dear Mr. Bennett~ RE Dan Cole On May 28, 2004, our office met with Mr. Dan Cole, concerning a complaint of illegal dumping which occurred on the Big Island of Hawar t. In sum, Mr. Cole alleges an individual has committed illegal ads of dumping, which in turn has caused Mr. Cole financial loss Mr. Cole presented what appeared to be considerable credible evidence to - substantiate his claims. Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum generated by the Hawar i County Department of Public Works summarizing Mr. Cole's contact with the County. Mr. Cole was advised to seek the services of the Attorney General's Environmental Crime`s Unit to initiate a complaint and have this matter property investigated- We ask your assistance on behalf of Mr. Cole to kook into this matter. Mr. Cote may be contacted at P.O. Box 630, Kea'au, Hawaii 96749. His telephone number is (808) 966-9229. We thank you in advance for your fdrid consideration of this matter. Very truly yours. LINCOLN S. T. ASH#DA End: Corporation Counsel cc: :,Dan Cole (w/alt end.) . Gary Safarik, Cqmc#man (w/out enCL) Bruce McClure, Director of Public Waft (w/out end.) S: DepattnnerftMwp C nadfl.SA Misc. Coaesp.RAtier to AG re Coil 6.404A SAm H81N81 ! COllllWJ•S 81? EQttal pPotfw#y EA4p1by9r-aW r r.. oaT~ PIMe_ (909)961--8272 Distria3 FAXy: (808) 961-8912 M•I~•iW HAW'AI`I COUNTY COUNT, COUNTY OF HAWArl Ap& 15, 2008 The - Edwad 1L Kebo Uniod Stdw A - PJKK Feces 8 300 A1aD a.B,Ivd.,#&100 Handk&% ffi 9695D Dear U.S. Amy Kubc Sect Co Dbroage mi ad VW' la m *f State and Fedend I aws tha Resulted'in f m F1aoding ' in lMo f am &e February 2009 Rain, and. Riegel Dumping of Solid. Was+ie in#hePunaD~ir~ Pumautto, aregnest bghfir Dan Cole, I am fkvarding*e, ftum bim fbe above subiec L Kyw have any.qwsdons or reguive name infer w irm Pl*ecot bawColicak B& Dam Cole . RO_Box630 KC aux M 96749 C 9669229 J Ytoy Council Mwnbet Sawan cowty Cauneff = Counts. D&t&t 3 JYld ea W Daa Cob 1rrwoiIC"Wr&Awrgnd0Aw ftyPAofdhrAwd. w EMIBff Y BeQhtaei,ffa BBoaawvem4WH~9 %?2s . Y, OF - - "O Hatu KZIIZ Adupor LnWrelct K_ Mahnntz Paltry Chief 7; 02 r 4 N. oiK? , County of Hawan Dmfv Police (W 349 Kap aWfl Street • HiK Hawaii 95720-3998 (808) 935-3311 -Fax (80$3 961-8869 May 29, 2008 Ms. Janet L. Kamerman Special Agent in Charge - U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Suite #4-230 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 - Dear OZ~eman: This is a follow-up to the phone conversation Major Marshall Kanehallua of the _ Hawaii Police Department had with Supervisory Special Agent Tom Glorioso on May 29, 2008. ' During that conversation, Major Kanehailua had requested the FBI's assistance in investigating the allegations of government corruption outlined in Mr. 'Dan Cole's letter dated May 6, 2008. Major Kanehailua was informed by SSA Glorioso that the FBI had already received a copy of the letter and is currently deciding on the appropriate action to be taken. Should- your office decide to initiate an Investigation of alleged corruption withirf our department, we are fully prepared to cooperate with such investigation. Should you have any questions,. feel free to contact Major Marshall Kanehailua of _ our Administrative Bureau at (808) 961 2247_ incere y, RENCE K. . MAHUNA POLICE CHIEF cc: Mr. Dan Cole- " Hawsi'i Camty is an Egtal Opponur*y Prwiderand F.rnplaoe ~ s . r Comcit Member '~ts= y a MaIIft 4ddr-w (fartnerL'oLrtty$rdtdt)2g) BwitTevs.4ddrPSS. 23 Azipud Shrd 333 KY&,u=Ave= second moor Hilo. Haww [ 96720 Ben Franklin B.Lom g 11rlo, Haivai 'I 96720 • HGIY(~LIZ `Z County Council County of Hawai `I _ Telephow n (808) 961-8267 POWftMe: (M) 961-8912 June 5, 2008 To: Dan A. Cole P. O. Box 630 Keaau, in 96749 Aloha. Dan A. Cole: Thank you very much for writing to me about your concern. I appreciate your letter and will follow-up regarding your mana'o. As of today, all complaints regarding Janet I. Kamerman, Jay T. Kimura, Lawrence K. Mahuna, Mr. Albert R. Gonzales, Edward H. Kubo, J, Stanley Yoshimoto, and All _ COUNCH.dVIEMBERS has been referred to C&Ugxrson Pete Hoffmann. Again, I thank you and. I hope this concern be resolved as sown as possible. Mahalo Nui Loa, Emily I. Naeole - - - Council .Member, 5" District t Ha*W-i County a an Equd OAmrmn ty Provider and Employer Harry Dint ,Llayor a ~ JAWrencey-majiunf • Pofite Caief r Harry & Kubojirl County of Hawa%a DeptttyPolicChief POUF E DEPARTPWIC4T 349 Kapiolami Su co a IW% Hawaii %720-3998 _ (808? 935331 I • Fax (~B) 96t 2389 July 17, 2008 Mr. Dan Cole P. O. Box 630 Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Dear Mr. Cole: RE: Cole et al. vs. Emily Naeole, Coundimember, Council District #5, County of Hawaii, Civil No. 08-1-0175 This acknowledges receipt of and responds to your letter of July 7, 2008. The Hawaii Police Department does not know whit the current status is regarding documents submitted to the FBI via letter dated May 29, 2008. It appears as if you are attempting to conduct diSCOvery in regards to pending civil proceedings. Until you comply with the rules regarding that process, the Hawaii Police Department declines to provide any further response. Sincerely, D MLI HSK:hmk °YINNei county is an gnat Oppoduaity Pwvidw and Fnqfioycr - w _ IN THE cmCU1a COURT 0V THE THIRD Cntcu STATE OF HAWAII DAM A. COTE, et aL, ) CIV. NO. 08-1-0175 Plaintiff } } AFFIDAVIT OF EMILY NAEOLE . EMILY NAEOLE, } D d ) l - AFFIDAVIT dR RMiTy i.Tarsr,; R COUNTY OF HAWAII ) ) ss. STATE OF HAWAII Affiant first being duly swom on oath deposes and states on personal knowledge; In 2006 I was elected and now serve as a Councd-Melnbet mpresentmg the 5& Distria of the County of Hawaii„ I received over 2000 votes in the $enen1 election as best I can recall right now There were addi ti+onal votes cast in the gene ad election, I have read the complaint and the attached a bffi fled in this case I remember ftlbng.Mx Cole I was a single mother earlier this year, and that mp daughter was involved in a cuueant matter involving police. But in his complaint he is Pub words in sap mouth that I did not say, and nialting assumoptions that are not true. I - am not a part of any criminal eaftqmse, before or after the fact. I do take my sworn oath seriously and hove I dealt with Mr- Cole's commplaint% between Jay Posh nnow and I o - (because we had the same complaint fro m IV[r. ColeJay to me that he (jay) Was going to take care ofit and send the infi=mtton t D the attorney general m Oahu to see what can be dome about Mn Cole's GOMPhdnt_ I am not a lawyer and we,, meatnng Jay'Yoshiraotn and my~ thought the best Way ` s . to deal with Mt Cole's Cotriplaiatg VU to U&C it to the Mosney general, and tIimes what i thought Jay Yoshimoto was going to do, and latet on Jay told me thaFs what he did I was aware that Mr. Cole had also spoloen with Cow member Jay Yoshimoto about his complaints. I was aware from W. Cole's st temearts to me that W. Cole had lost-a court case against the County, that the County had dumped some matend on his land, and he was trying to get me to-help him reverse the court case result. I told him I was not a lawyer and couWt help him with that problem I knew Jay Yoslumoto was an attorney and I was not, and I told Mr. Cole I was not an attorney, and tat Jay Yoshimoto told me he "was going to take care of it" and that sometime later on I heard from W. Yoshimoto drat he had sent a 1etta to the FBI on Mr. Cole's behalf and had forwarded Mr. Cole's concerns onto the FBL It appears from the exlaft that Mr. Cale attached to his complaint the W. Yosbimoto did do what he told me he had done on Mr_ Cole's - behalf I supported Jay Yosb nnato in smkftg W. Cole's complaint to the FBL I have no fns hand knowledge about oom",on in the Hawaii County police deparbaent or the County of Hawal I expressed empathy tD Mr. Cole and his demiption of his legal sins as he desCnbed them to rue. And Further Aff6nt Sageth Naught , . Rudiy ae'ole This x page AffidavitL~dRT&V_ was sabsar~ and swom to before me on this ~y of --~A` in ffitjhird Cirdtutvfthe State of Hawaii, by rw* Naeole. 1~fj~ r _~tt•~IDA TCO # per; Notary Public, State of Hawau _~.dY/T flll- `ii\tit natue: ME VIN X MATSUNAGA IN, A- IATS on expiiesr \ z _f_~_ )WARY CENT iFl T~l+! ~ = O~ ~ y : - . lFE 01l OFD INTHE MM 3 li fS MSTMT Dann Cole MMIGTOFHAWMf plabdift pro s P .O. Bft,630 MAY 1 7 IR %74'5 Tekphoa-- t 96&nn O'clock etnd WALTMA.Y.H. Y.Iiml IN TM UNnE3STAIMD G°raXMT DWmlcr of lEi&WAf# C OM DAW A YS. CX?MPLAIl~IT - STATEE~FHAWAII ~BMK CONFLAM' L~PilliN~fFg~tiio~~eco~p~YdW, msbftd in dw She mtEkwa k of ie0es dal Anpt 7.g, 5082 i O1-M }9 S'Mm YX- amw- P-E-, ChWC SON & WumB=,b, isav oflbe PbdotW . ceder&oFbm em&A lbDaa<PaooeasefLaw. 2. TBE3ii A A g dW tideD ,sareebetesaftmac&M of md IDbe GqPutmdsmdbbmdscdom band an do pimbawsnm T'-M"41WFMAAM8 h's C,a ft-DmPtoc=aLaw D 13 ?200S, Kea&%$I Dan A Ca Fbiam PIO Se WMSPATES D SJRiCT CMW DAN A. Coi.I; DMOT OF HAWAll P_O. Box 630 FEB 20Q~ hone: 808-966-922 -k-O ctaek _ Ply Pro Se 8UE BEMA. IN TIRE UNITED STATM DMRIcT COURT FOR TIM D&-IRX'r OF DAWAAU DANA COLB } C:IViGN(} Q 5 JIM-BUK p ST S VS. STATE OF HAWAR COUNTY OF -RAWAIL at aL S?TI~3~.AT[nwe As aU whMe P SMin eament it is d.Awtbe Co,,y Md 8id& Ofd, by and, ~ s ~thair amento did Oreaten the phantEff with the itkut to boamce delay, or pmew*eP s tasthnmy iQean PMCCO&R& and ac F Ian A. Cok by dqdvbg a United sty citizan in *eorthe of Dare PZ. ~Equd prokcam atthe Laws as d byffi~eF of the Uniod sides C.on DATM: I,iawa~% Febray 12, 2008 Da©.A. C:oie Plafidw Pro Se 19113 STAT]Ekg) CT C ' DMIRX-r40F HAWAII DAN-A- OM Y CIVIC, No. cv 05-0032:5 JAR-$ 1 - ) CERTMICATF OF Sit C P, _S V 1 STATE OFgAWAE ! COUNTY OFBAWAXt.L DefimdontsL 1 . z himO On IJNCO.N &T. FDA, ESQ. MAR$J BBWW1T, ESQ. I li. A. GARSOKESQ ESQL . AIL RTA-K ESQ S. moo, MQ comity amt S`timo Chat Mo L ca*e Sulb 325 R -200 i0 101 Ampuni m 465 ors Sw Bww M13 Aftmq~s hr She aft a IN& t rw+ FM s~cwo~w?a.noesrear Dan A- Cbe Dan A.. Cole phantm Pro Se Box 630 _ Keaau HI 96749 o~ Una co u S.T. Asi:.da io3 auguai St., Suite 325 3 etJ'f ~ w H110. HI 96720 PS E:bm =a. a JA T e911Ra MAGA1'1'ORMEY CHRRLLmey.fi5Cr5H! GrA K1LAUEAAVM4jG FIRST mFi1w X61-OaBe ~4J~CLFRtVt3 ATTdRA4EY * PAX- M4=8 - esr ai0a 994z~r's 'r a x~ aZ W=NAWAPi UNIT HALR f sT ourm -160 OFFICE OF THE - E KcA.LA1'3~"' 1•i SG7sa PH. =-2552 ATTORNEY FAX =-65" 01/26/2009 DAN A Cpl P-- O - SOX 630 KZAAU HI 96749 PoXice Report NO: 008039254-002 Charge (a) . BARASSMRgT- Date of dffe_Pse-- 12/29/.08 Next Event S This-letter is-to inform-you that our office report indicating you were.a victim in Office has received a police the above currently being reviewed to-determine if r use' The re pursued- c mina.1 char port is g'e$ eau- be . We cannot release the suspect's name at this time because have not been filed. However, if you sho71d have charges the criminal justice process, or if you have any questions about phone number, please contact: g Your address or The victim/witness Assistance Unit, Phone No: 934-3306 Sincerely yours, VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCK PROGRAM ~9? is a~ EgrM OAP~14r rrarm.raM Bnp~o~u Tl RN Y sir 6WIMALIUkAVENUE CHARLERE X IMSHt MST DEPUTY O, t gWp sso ! Pik 901-04gg PROSEOL NGATlOMey ~FAX;96 448 934,M t 934-3503 °j oc'~c T'om` s'!-GW HALE 6,r WrrE-150 K 32 98= OFFICE OF THE P ~s + uuma w, HAWAR ATToRNEY PI - FAx: 3a-6584 01/26/20.09 DAN A COLE P-0. BOX 630 KEAAII ICI 9674.9 Police {sRj port Na- 008039284-001 berg HARA93ML~11T Date of Oats ~.2. /?/o g. Ntart ant : SCfULgrj s This letter is to inform you that our office has report indicating you were a victim in. the above received a police currently being reviewed to determine if criminal charges The repay is pursued. can be We cannot release the suspect's name at this time because charges have not been filed. However, if you should have the criminal justice process, or if -you have chang your address ed your address about phone number, please contact: or The victimAitness Assistance Unit Phone NO: 934-3306 Sincerely yours, VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE' PROGRAM tisr.li oemd ~,Q ~a.r aaat~.Kre,~ • UmJrY S. Surojir Polies C7iieJ' t ftW IL Fert~rra County 1~i+~Pblfee ~Je` ur~ of a n Mu t"ARMUM _ iS?#35-331 9st-ss~ February 24, MM DM Cole _ Re: Poems Resort co=Ml Puri UMA. to Iw' request the fONOWbg is noted: Report is not avambe as: more Wmrnatiori needed; unable to locate resort. written autho n Is required frnrn party in kTtweet. a sum dLMs facum is retired. x Other: We are not producing the requested item as the case is pending erther kw"ttlatiOn or Pin. We rely upon the - foltowing chapters of the Hawal Revised Statutes which read in part-as mss: This 'i3 Govenunent records; exceptions to germs rule. Dart not require d' ure aF ...(3)Govennrmtl that, by their nature, must be confkknU in frustration of a orderinr the government to avoid the iegilimate governnrentfunction.... 22 Exemptions and tirniftatiorm on k4vkuaf access. An aged is not required by •this Part ID grant an indMdual access to perso.nal r+ m ft or inifam lion in such records: (1) Mamftirled by an agency that P as its or as a PrkxVal function any activity P9fbk g to ft p+vvwftn,. control, or reduction of Critruk -and which cort6ist of. (A) irdonrstiion or reports prepared or convoed for the Purr of crirninal intelC or of a inh iuding reports of s prepared or or {B} Reports the process of entnrcerner fr+orn ansst or irxkftm t through cbnfi mneK Ek~~oomgrisa T,~i~PPP~+ri~ras~ Harry K&W LaV ~ - _ PAGcr es 1V HaiT3' & XUbgW Patio Ch,,f - - county of Ijaw~ . 0935-3317 . pct j9b1 S P.O. Box 630 - 4 ~ 96749 7007 256i} tl0#3 4752 Re: *M bckkyt anAWat 6, - =:=~ftslr eport number P(VSUW*t D Vow "X!Sk the fokwkV IS noted: Report is not a as: more wrii~en u` unable to tome report a SU13poena duces tin r Y a kT*MKMs ajuvenfle- wort (s) avadied/endosed as rte, per: reftcted cx)py of inc~ report has been erne report court riot be Prawkied, PrDOess of being Sent 110 the PrOseaft that i is in i Codes o~F t Officp Officer Ka~ c~ you submitted to Inciderit , the can be nW*wed, aver the $3-40 fees am paid fb It IUer- *e are not produc&V the a terse requested eitisp upon the f~ybV dmpbm of the P un- s w Kh rat in part as f -.-(3) tbvernm Inust be am*dWM in under flor #fie ID avaW the man of a Wftnab, mat Win.... An agency kK*Adual is not wed by this part tD giant an accew IID personal records, or in such r `aaiCgisas Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act COW2 6 ffeg - L-A - V ~"CjT i iv~i . T'he RaekNew and Copt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal o om RICO was enacted by section 902(a) of the Organized mime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stet. 922 (i3 OckAw 1970. RICO is codified as of the United States Code, 19 U.S.C. 1962 drough Chapter 96 of Tide 18 $ 18 U.S.C. § 1968. It was intended to make it easier to Prosecute organized crime figures, but has been applied m several other caste as wdL It has been speculated that-the name and scaonyln weae selected in .sty to fie movie ,rMk cam, which featured a notorious ga~ugsfea named Rico The original draftw of the bill, G Robert Blakey refused to confirm or deny this.0] ' SUMM Under RICO, a meson or group who commits any two of 35 caimes-27 fide al crimes and 9 soft crimes-within a 10=year period and, is the opWori of the United States Attorney bdqft the caw, committed these crimes with smular purpose or resoft can be chwrpd with rackefteriug~ Tie found gm of racketeering can be fined up to Mow and ,or seed to 20 years in prism per racketeering cowL in addition, racketeer. ust forfeit all ill gotten gains and interest: is ally businew gained dwough a P When the U .S- Attorney deciders to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trfai restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a deftdanft assets and forfeitable Property. as well as require the defaxbm to prevent the trander of put UP a performance bond. This provision was was placed in the law because the owners of Mafiad shill GPs often abed with the assets. An nVuncbon' and/or Performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event: ofa guilty verdict. In because many cases, the threat of a RICO indigent can force defers to plead g WW to lesser charges, in part the sea= of assets would make it difficult to pay adef =e attorney. Despite its barsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in eomt, as it focuses on panans of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[2] lbere is 8130 a Provision fur Pdveft o parties to sea. A "Person damaged is his business or pd+op W can sue are not the plaintiffmost prove the existence ofa "criminal enterprise." The mss) wise, in other words, the demdant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the it(s) and the cntcqxiw- This lawsuit, like most Federal civil lavvsuks, can take ph*-- m either Federal or State court [1j (httpJlwww dealer-magaaae oom/in~C,as ?L 1) Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (dam in triple the amount of actuaUcompe ry damages). Although its primary iii was to den[ with orgeourd crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Tme~ "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whom names end m vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy L4mgue diplomas." TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1962 § 1962. Prohibited activities (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so; shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after, such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section. US CODE: Title. 18,196 1. Definitions Page 1 of 3 Y.' k rr6' ~ ~ I(~(I r~: F1 ~ y~Ey l.y C3 fi~~~ Pse STS ~ lL ~F '4it ` 7 I F 2 6 L ~~.'.r k~ r'~r 'a~f Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute U.S. Code collection Help us provide free legal information for everyone- please give! TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 96 > § 1961 § 1961. Definitions As used in this chapter- (1) "racketeering activity" means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581- 1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,i11 section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 htr„•//xxnxnw lnw onrne11 ecin/wwnde/l R/1-961-html 7/2/2009- US CODE: Title 18,1961. Definitions Page 2 of 3 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175-178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229-229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B); (2) "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof; (3) "person" includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4) "enterprise" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity; (5) "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity; (6) "unlawful debt" means a debt (A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate; httn•//xznan;v law cnrnell erln/ncenrie/1 9/1961 _html 7/2/2009 US CODE: Title 18,1961. Definitions Page 3 of 3 (7) "racketeering investigator" means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter; (8) "racketeering investigation" means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter; } (9) "documentary material" includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material; and (10) "Attorney General" includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General of the United States, or any employee of the Department of Justice or any employee of any department or agency of the United States so designated by the Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on the Attorney General by this chapter. Any department or agency so designated may use in investigations authorized by this chapter either the investigative provisions of this chapter or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. [1] So in original. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. httn://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/18/1961.html 7/2/2009 TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 2 § 2. Principals (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 3 § 3. Accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United Stag-has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum tern of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of . the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4 § 4. Misprision of felony -Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil dr military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241 241. Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having-so exercised the same; or . If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the ads committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kilt, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 19 > § 371 § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to If two or more persons defraud United States conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such peons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which Is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor. US CODE: Title 18,3. Accessory after the fact Page 1 of 2 4 Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute U.S. Code collection Help us provide free legal information for everVene- please give! TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 3 § 3. Accessory after the fact Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. httn://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/718/usc sec 18 00000003---- 000-.html 6/25/2009 US CODE: Title 18,1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant . Page 1 of 4 r t Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute U. S. Code collection TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1512 § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (a) (1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to- .(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3). (2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to- (A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (B) cause or induce any person to- (i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding; (iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or (C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be punished as provided in paragraph "(3). Tiff" //xxTZxnxTA laxv nnrnall arln/ncrnrla/~ R/nc~. cac 1R 0000151? 000- html 7/70009 US CODE: Title 18,1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant Page 2 of 4 (3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is- (A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112; (B) in the case of- (i) an attempt to murder; or (ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person; imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and (C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years. (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to- (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2). cause or induce any person to- (A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; (C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or (D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release„[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly- (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from- (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; 11 A 1 - - - '--L_-_ _ H AL_-- 10 nnnn1CI Il ANNA 1..i.„,mil 717 /~nnn US CODE: Title 18,241. Conspiracy against rights Page 1 of 2 Search Law School Search Cornell K7o LII / Legal Information Institute U.S. Code collection Help us provide free legal information for everyone- please give! TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241 § 241. Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. httn•/hznanu lauu rr.nrnPll Pr1n/ncenrlP/19041 hi-ml 6/25/2009 US CODE: Title 42,1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights Page 2 of 2 is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. httn_//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/usc sec 42 00001985---- 000-.html 6/25/2009 US CODE: Title 18,242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Page 1 of 2 r~ v CdrG3 Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute U. S. Code collection Help us provide free legal information for everyone- please give! TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. US CODE: Title 42,1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Page 1 of 2 4 2 r ~ lA_. rr'~r~f o I }Y Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute U.S. Code collection TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. ~1-Fv•~~iininz~~cinA•H G~~ PA-Moor A-I ')hicn QP/, d / nn001 QRI---- nnn_ htM1 US CODE: Title 42,1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights Page 1 of 2 - , Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute U. S. Code collection TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1985 § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (1) Preventing officer from performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire'to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such n a„ a,,.,,,,,a,.in) i,,.,,. - Al nnnnloQC nnn L.+-1 aizni~nno US CODE: Title 18,874. Kickbacks from public works employees Page 1 of 2 fik t ti Search Law School Search Cornell ~ ~ t J LII / Legal Information Institute U. S. Code collection TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 874 § 874. Kickbacks from public works employees whoever, by force, intimidation, or threat of procuring dismissal from employment, or by any other manner whatsoever induces any person employed in the construction, prosecution, completion or repair of any public building, public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from the United States, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is entitled under his contract of employment, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII. httn-//-ananx7 law nnmf-ll erln/rnco.nirle/1 R/R7d html 7/1 d11000 COUNTY OF HAWAII OATH OF LOYALTY/OFFICE Prescribed by 85-32, HRS, 8 13-5, HC Charter STATE OF HAWAII, aa. ......................COUNTY OF.................. I, • • • • . . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that ' I will faithfully do my duties as . to the best of my ability. So help me God (and so .1 do affirm). Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 . • Notary Public . judicial • Signature of Officer or EmP•loY•ee Circuit, State of Hawaii My Commission Expires: . Filed 19 Cif Service commission Filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 • • . Date.. entrance on duty • Signature of Department Head Department or Establishment ;,,l - L may''..: ~r c Frt HAWAII REVISED STATUTES 2006 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT VOLUME 14 TITLES 37 - 38, CHAPTERS 701 - 853 FOR USE WITH THE 1993 REPLACEMENT VOLUME OF ly % i i 3r r+~~ 7x~ t L/ 1 V s k 1 T PUBLISHED BY AUTHORrrY r y 51v d~ r y~ 3 17 4 G .i 2y. - ? y ..'.'kci .T.!+t' - fi Y' • . fit ~'C'. ~ . x'h+. 707-756 HAWAII PENAL CODE OFF (2) Electronic enticement of a child in the first degree is a class B felony. (d) Commit a Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, if a person sentenced under this section is (e) Accuse sc sentenced to probation rather than an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the tetras instituted and conditions of probation shall include, but not be limited to, a term of impris- (f) Expose a onment of one year. [L 2002, c 200, pt of §1; am L 2006, c 80, §21 tending tc to impair §707-757 Electronic enticement of a child in the second degree. (1) Any (g) Reveal an person who, using a computer or any other electronic device: ened or at (a) Intentionally or knowingly communicates: (h) Testify or (i) With a minor known by the person to be under the age of eighteen tion with years; (i) Take or w (ii) With another person, in reckless disregard of the risk that the other vant to tal person is under the age of eighteen years, and the other person is 0) Bring abo under the age of eighteen years; or action, to (iii) With another person who represents that person to be under the age benefit of of eighteen years; and (k) Do any otl (b) With the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony, agrees fendant bt to meet with the minor, or with another person who represents that per- with respe son to be a minor under the age of eighteen years; and ing, career (c) Intentionally or knowingly travels to the agreed upon meeting place at (2) Intentionally co: the agreed upon meeting time; which another h; is guilty of electronic enticement of a child in the second degree. another has a le (2) Electronic enticement of a child in the second degree is a class C felony. do any of the a( Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, if a person sentenced under this section is (3) Makes or finan sentenced to probation rather than an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the terms extension of crt and conditions of probation shall include, but not be limited to, a term of impris- L 2001, c 33, onment of one year. [L 2002, c 200, pt of §1; am L 2006, c 80, §3] COAMWNTARY ON §§707-756 AND 757 In RICO action, plaintiff did nc Act 200, Session Laws 2002, added these sections to create criminal offenses relating to electronic extortion regarding defendant's lo enticement of a child. The legislature found that Act 200 addressed the problem of utilizing computer technology in committing crimes against children. Conference Committee Report No. 36-02. Act 80, Session Laws 2006, amended §§707-756 and 707-757 to mandate at least one year of incar- [§707-765] Extorti ceration for defendants convicted of electronic enticement of a child. Act 80 provided a means to ensure the safety of Hawaii's children, enhance enforcement efforts, and impose significant penalties against those who prey on the most vulnerable members of the community. Conference Committee Report No. 10-06. Evidence sufficient to convict $1,100 from brother and gave it §707-758 REPEALED. L 2002, c 240, §11. money. 103 H. 68 (App.), 79 P.3 [PART VII.] EXTORTION §707-769 Defenses (2) If the owner of §707-764 Extortion. A person commits extortion if the person does any eficiary, it is a defense to a of the following: 707-764 that: (1) Obtains, or exerts control over, the property or services of another with (a) The property wl intent to deprive another of property or services by threatening by word erted constitute: or conduct to: (b) The defendant a (a) Cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any living together other person; [am L 1997, c 383, § (b) Cause damage to property or cause damage, as defined in section 708-890, to a computer, computer system, or computer network; (c) Subject the person threatened or any other person to physical con- finement or restraint; Only the subsection amended i 90 71 44 Ali, y, t.- .tom 1?i4hl •r='--".13 1V J.•'YJ ah L th . r ~J r ~ F X~7 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON - 707-7691 (d) Commit a penal offense;',, r' + 1 # (e) Accuse some person of any offense or cause a penal-charge to be rF k , instituted against some person; t r (f) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, r tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair the threatened person's credit or business repute; (g) Reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threat- r' ened or any other person; J (h) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or informa- tion with respect to another's legal claim or defense; r' ?r (i) Take or withhold action as a public servant, or cause a public ser- vant to take or withhold such action; v "1 0) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other similar collective rr` y action, to obtain property that is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group that the defendant purports to represent; or (k) Do any other act that would not in itself substantially benefit the de- fendant but which is calculated to harm substantially some person zr with respect to the threatened person's health, safety, business, call- ing, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships;` (2) Intentionally compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from [ which another has a legal right to abstain or to abstain from conduct in which t another has a legal right to engage by threatening by word or conduct to y9 ; do any of the actions set forth in paragraph (1)(a) through (k); or (3) Makes or finances any extortionate extension of credit, or collects any j ; extension of credit by extortionate means. [L 1979, c 106, pt of §1; am L 2001, c 33, §31 Case Notes' • 1 1 y 'X In RICO action, plaintiff did not satisfy essential element of extortion and failed to establish attempted extortion regarding defendant's letter to plaintiff. 855 F. Supp. 1156. t ti, ,I4 X [§707-765] Extortion in the first degree. Case Notes Evidence sufficient to convict defendant under this section- evidence showed that victim borrowed, 4; ~y ;f- $1,100 from brother and gave it to defendant; when victim borrowed the money, it became victim's money. 103 H. 68 (A PP•), 79 P.3d 686. 4 r,. §707-769 Defenses to extortion. [ r (2) If the owner of the property is the defendant's spouse or reciprocal ben- r~ eficiary, it is a defense to a prosecution for extortion under paragraph (1) of section ' ~ kn 707-764 that: (a) The property which is obtained or over which unauthori zed control is ex- r` erted constitutes household belongings; and (b) The defendant and the defendant's spouse or reciprocal beneficiary were '=f } living together at the time of the conduct. ar Y , [am L 1997, c 383, §681 r ` f* ~ y Revision Note 5 Only the subsection amended is compiled in this Supplement. 91 i G 1 a ' a 'i Page 1 of 2 §710-1017 Tampering with a government record. (1) A person commits the offense of tampering with a government record if: (a) The person knowingly and falsely makes, completes, or alters, or knowingly makes a false entry in, a written instrument which is or purports to be a government record or a true copy thereof; or (b) The person knowingly presents or uses a written instrument which is or purports to be a government record or a true copy thereof, knowing that it has been falsely made, completed, or altered, or that a false entry has been made therein, with intent that it be taken as genuine; or (c) The person knowingly records, registers, or files, or offers for recordation, registration, or filing, in_a governmental office or agency, a written statement which has been falsely made, completed, or altered, or in which a false entry has been made, or which contains a false statement or false information; or (d) Knowing the person lacks the authority to do so: (i) The person intentionally destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the availability of any government records; or (ii) The person refuses to deliver up a government record in the person's possession upon proper request of a public servant entitled to receive such record for examination or other purposes. (2) For the purpose of this section, "government record" includes all official books, papers, written instruments, or records created, issued, received, or kept by any governmental office or agency or required by law to be kept by others for the information of the government. (3) Tampering with government records is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1991, c 145, §2; gen ch 1993] COMMENTARY ON §710-1017 This section is intended to penalize conduct which undermines confidence in the accuracy of public records. The accuracy of public records is essential to efficient"public administration and, beyond the immediate context of public administration, the government has an interest in protecting public confidence in its records. This section does not require that the misuse of the public record be with intent to defraud another, i.e., to injure an interest which has value, as do the sections on forgery. Nor does this section require that the information made part of the public record, or offered for recordation, registration, or filing, be under oath or sworn to, as do the sections on perjury and related offenses. Those offenses, however, do complement the offense of tampering with public records, but they deal directly, and in a more precise context, with the aggravated circumstances presented. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo114 Ch070l-0853/HRS0710/HRS 0710=1017.... 5/2/2009 Page 2 of 2 This section is also addressed to the problem of access to public records. Obviously, acts of destruction and concealment impair the efficiency of public administration. Subsection (1)(d)(i) is intended primarily to cover acts of destruction, concealment, or impairment by individuals vis-a-vis the government, whereas subsection (1)(d)(ii) is intended primarily to cover the situation where a public servant refuses to surrender records-.to.another public servant when the public servant has the duty to do so. Both clauses of this subsection are, however, worded broadly in order to cover acts of destruction, concealment, or retention out-side their areas of immediate concern. Subsection (2) is intended to be inclusive and to cover not only records..traditionally considered "public" but also information kept for the benefit of the government, such as medical prescription records. Previous Hawaii law on tampering with public records is similar to the code,[1] however the Code covers acts of tampering not covered under prior law, clarifies the acts that are covered, and dispenses with the former, archaic requirement of "malice" as it relates to this offense. §710-1017 Commentary: 1. H.R.S. §753-3. Previous Voll4 Ch0701-0853 Next http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo114_Ch070l -0853/HRS07101HRS_0710-1017.... 5/2/2009 House Bill Page 1 of 8 PART I. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT INTRODUCTORY COMMENTARY This chapter deals with conduct which is designed to culminate in the commission of a substantive offense but which fails to do so. The failure may be due to apprehension or intervention by law enforcement officials or it may be due to some other miscalculation on the part of the defendant. In this sense attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy are predominantly inchoate in nature and are grouped in this chapter for a unified and integrated treatment. While it is true that other offenses, such as reckless endangering, forgery, kidnapping, property damage and burglary, have incoate aspects,_ "attempt, solicitation and conspiracy have such generality of definition and of application as inchoate crimes that it is useful to bring them together in the Code and to confront the common problems they present."[1] §705-500 Criminal attempt. (1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the person: (a) Intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as the person believes them to be; or (b) Intentionally engages in conduct which, under the circumstances as the person believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the person's commission of the crime. (2) When causing a particular result is an element of the crime, a person is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime if, acting with the state of mind required to establish liability with respect to the attendant circumstances specified in the definition of the crime, the person intentionally engages in conduct which is a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to cause such a result. (3) Conduct shall not be considered a substantial step under this section unless it is strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal intent. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993] Introductory Commentary: 1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 24 (1960). Cross References Definitions of states of mind, see §702-206. COMMENTARY ON §705-500 The proscription against criminal attempts is sometimes said to be based on the dangerousness of the actor's conduct. While this http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vo114 ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 3 of 8 is an independent crime to intentionally kill a police officer and that recklessness with respect to the victim's identity as a police officer is sufficient to establish that attendant circumstance. If a defendant attempts to kill a police officer recklessly mistaken as to the intended victim's identity (e.g., the defendant recklessly believes the police officer to be a night security guard), attempt liability ought to result. Subsection (2) so provides. It would hardly make sense to-hold that the.defendant should be relieved.of attempt liability in the situation hypothesized because the defendant did not intend that the victim be a police officer. Furthermore, it would be anomalous to hold that had the defendant succeeded, and the substantive crime been consummated, the-defendant would be guilty of the substantive crime but that, upon the failure of the defendant's attempt, the defendant's lack of intent with respect to an attendant circumstance precludes penal liability for the attempt. It should be noted that the requirement of intentional conduct, with respect to attempts, limits the application of the attempt section to offenses which., can be committed by intentional conduct. For example, if a given offense can be committed by intentional or reckless conduct, reckless conduct which stops short of consummation of the offense is not sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit the offense. To constitute an attempt, the inchoate behavior must be intentional, i.e., purposeful. This principle is illustrated by the following passage from the commentary to Michigan's recent revision: Thus, where criminal liability rests on the causation of a prohibited result, the actor must have an intent to achieve that result even though violation of the substantive offense may require some lesser mens rea. Reckless driving, for example, does not constitute attempted manslaughter. A person charged with the substantive crime of manslaughter may be liable as a result of... recklessness causing death, but the same recklessness would not be sufficient if the victim did not die and the actor were only charged with attempt; here, the state would have to show an intent to achieve the prohibited end result, death of the victim. In this area, as in others if the substantive crime requires only recklessness, the mens rea requirement for an attempt is substantially higher than that for the substantive crime.[3] Substantial step. Subsections (1)(b) and (2) also deal with and resolve another problem which has troubled courts in deciding attempt cases: the act or conduct sufficient to impose penal liability. It is an old saw that the penal law does not seek to punish evil thought alone. However, in attempt cases some decision must be made as to what conduct, when engaged in with a criminal intent, will be sufficient for the imposition of criminal liability notwithstanding the defendant's failure to commit a substantive offense. It seems clear that there is no difficulty in holding a defendant penally liable for an attempt when the defendant's conduct would have constituted the crime if the defendant had not been mistaken about the attendant circumstances. This is the easy case resolved by subsection http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vo114_ChO701-O853MS0705/HRS_0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill A Page 2 of 8 rationale would support a result in many cases, in others it would not. A defendant may engage in conduct which itself cannot be said to be dangerous, but which, when measured against the defendant's intent, would indicate that the defendant himself is a dangerous person and the proper subject of the penal law. The Code therefore focuses on the defendant's disposition. Our concern is not with thought or disposition alone; but rather to clarify "what conduct, when engaged in with a purpose to commit a crime or to advance towards the attainment of a criminal objective, should suffice to constitute a criminal attempt."[1] The nature.of intent in attempt cases. Subsection (1) recognizes penal liability where the defendant's conduct is intentional and consummation of the crime is prevented either by the defendant's erroneous appraisal of attendant (i.e., those specified by the definition of the offense) or other circumstances or by some intervening factor following a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime. It is easy to recognize penal liability in such cases, notwithstanding the absence of a substantive offense, because the defendant's intent--the defendant's conscious object--is commission of a crime. The defendant's disposition toward criminal activity thus established, attempt liability is imposed, under subsection (1)(a), if the defendant's conduct has advanced so far toward the criminal objective as to constitute the crime had the attendant circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, or, under subsection (1)(b), if the defendant's conduct has advanced so far toward the criminal objective as to constitute a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to reach that objective. In subsection (2) liability is imposed on a defendant who has intentionally engaged in conduct which is a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to culminate in a prohibited result. Thus, a defendant who intends to destroy a building, and who regards the destruction of its inhabitants as a regrettable by- product, could be convicted of attempted murder (as well as attempted arson)[2] if the defendant intentionally performed a substantial step (e.g., started a fire) which the defendant knew (i.e., was practically certain) would result in death. Attempt liability is provided for a defendant who engages in such conduct because the defendant's manifestation of dangerousness is of the same order as that of the defendant who engaged in the intentional conduct of subsection (1). Subsection (2) also covers a relatively infrequent, but nonetheless troublesome, occurrence in attempt cases. A given crime may be so defined that the attendant circumstances may be established by a nonintentional state of mind (i.e., with respect to the attendant circumstances the actor may act knowingly, recklessly, or negligently). If such is the case, and the defendant intentionally engages in conduct planned to culminate in the result,.attempt liability should exist if the defendant was otherwise culpable with respect to the attendant circumstances. Suppose, for example, that it http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vo114 Ch0701-0853/HRS0705/HRS 0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 4 of 8 (1)(a). In those cases where the defendant's intentional conduct does not constitute the substantive crime either because of some mistake on the defendant's part unrelated to specified attendant circumstances (e.g., mistake as to the capability of the means used) or because the course of conduct has not proceeded to its final objective, some principle must be articulated.--to indicate when attempt liability initially obtains. This is a most delicate task. Accepting as we do the position of the Model Penal Code that attempt liability is primarily concerned with the dangerous disposition of the actor as manifested by conduct, this Code also follows the Model Penal Code.in rejecting any standard based on the proximity of the actor's conduct to the culmination of the crime.[4] Adherence to that standard would require thatthe dangerousness of the defendant's ..conduct rather than the dangerousness of the defendant be regarded as the determining factor. The Code follows the Model Penal Code standard in requiring in subsections (1)(a) and (2) that the relevant conduct amount to a "substantial step in a course of conduct" planned to culminate in the commission of the crime or intended or known to cause.a criminal result. Subsection (3) provides that conduct shall not be considered a "substantial step" under subsections (1) and (2) unless it is strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal intent. In excluding acts which are not strongly corroborative, the Code seeks to provide an additional safeguard in the application of the "substantial step" standard so that law enforcement agencies and triers of fact will not put equivocal conduct within its ambit. There are, on the other hand, certain types of conduct which, if strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal intent, could reasonably be held to constitute a "substantial step" and should not be held insufficient on this issue as matter of law. These types of conduct are: (a) lying in wait, searching for, or following the contemplated victim of the crime; (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission; (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime; (d) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed; (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specially designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances; (f) possession, collection, or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection, or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances; and (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime.[5] Rather than propose codification of these examples, we set them forth in the commentary to aid the court in the interpretation of subsection (3). It can, of course, be argued that the Code's formulation leaves an area of imprecision where preciseness is most needed. As in other http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrseurrent/vo114_ChO701-O853A[ RS0705MS_0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 5 of 8 areas of the Code,[6] the limits of what can be made precise must be recognized. It has been said that the genius of the Model Penal Code, from which this Code is to a great extent derived, is demonstrated by its recognition of the limits of precision in statutory language.[7]_._ The characteristic spirit of the Code's draftmanship inheres in its adoption of the "Aristotelian axiom" that "it is the mark of the educated man to seek precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits." When precision is possible, the Code is devastatingly precise. When precision is not possible, it is not sought, nor is-there any pretense that it has been attempted.[8]- While substantiality is obviously a matter of degree, it is no more so in attempt cases than it is in recklessness, negligence, or causation problems. In each case the jury or the court (when it is trying the facts) must address itself to the defendant's conduct and determine, with a view to other stated criteria,[9] whether it should be condemned. The Code focuses on what is deemed to be the correct function of the act requirement in attempt cases: to provide a standard which (a) distinguishes between conduct which is highly equivocal from the external standpoint and that which is not externally equivocal, or only slightly so, and which (b) is oriented toward the actor's disposition or dangerousness rather than toward proximity to consummation of the substantive crime.` In looking at the substantiality of the defendant's step-in a course of conduct, the Code requires the trier of fact to measure what has already been done by the defendant--not how much more the defendant must do before consummation of the substantive crime is achieved. To this extent, the shift in focus broadens the scope of attempt liability. Rejection of defense of impossibility. Focusing as it does on the dangerousness of the actor, rather than on the dangerousness of the actor's conduct, the Code rejects the defense of "impossibility" in attempt cases. The Code does not afford a defense to one who intends a criminal course of conduct but who is mistaken as to certain circumstances which make commission of the crime legally or factually impossible Subsection (1) is addressed to the problem of the defendant's mistake as to attendant circumstances (i.e., circumstances specified in the definition of the offense). It makes such mistake immaterial if the crime would have been consummated had the attendant circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be. Thus, for example, a defendant would be guilty of attempt to bribe a juror if the defendant offered a bribe to a person the defendant believed to be a juror notwithstanding the fact that the object of the bribe turned out not to be a juror. A defendant would be guilty of attempted murder if the defendant intentionally shot a corpse or tree stump believing it to be a living person. Of course, the conduct or result must be specified in the definition of an offense; the actor's belief that it is criminal is not sufficient. For example, a person who seeks to give false testimony is not guilty of attempted perjury if http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vo114_Ch070l -0853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 6 of 8 the testimony sought to be given is immaterial and would not, if given constitute perjury.[10] Subsection (1)(b) is addressed in part to the problem of impossibility. A defendant may be mistaken as to circumstances other than those specified in the definition of an offense and such mistake may render actual commission of the offense impossible. Thus, for example, a defendant may aim and fire a gun at another mistakenly believing that it is loaded or the defendant may set some sort of explosive trap unaware that the fuse is defective and incapable of detonating the charge. Also, the defendant may be mistaken as to attendant circumstances and the defendant may have taken a substantial step toward the defendant's criminal objective, but the defendant's conduct has not advanced far enough to constitute the crime had the attendant circumstances been as the defendant supposed. For example, a defendant may set a fatal trap near a corpse, believing it to be a living person. In such cases, subsection (1)(b) permits liability for the attempt In the examples stated the defendant believed the means chosen to be sufficient or the attendant circumstances to be present, and the defendant has obviously taken a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of a crime. There is no reason to preclude liability for the attempt merely because the defendant was mistaken as to some circumstance which made actual commission of the substantive crime impossible. Where the offense is defined in terms of the result of conduct, subsection (2) would also cover the situation. Previous Hawaii law. The previous law of attempt, H.R.S. §702-1 (as compiled prior to this Code) required intent plus some act towards commission, as does the Code. However, there was no requirement that the act be a substantial step in furtherance of the commission. There are apparently no Hawaii cases dealing with this point. Courts have usually dealt with the evidentiary function of the actor's conduct in terms of whether it constituted an act of perpetration rather than merely preparation.[11] The Code focuses more directly and clearly on the function of the requirement without seeking precision where precision is not practicable. The problem of impossibility, which the Code deals with in subsection (1) and (2), was not covered by any prior statute. Moreover, there is apparently no Hawaii case law on this point. However, this section is in accord with recent penal revisions in other jurisdictions. Case Notes Evidence held sufficient to support attempted rape and attempted assault. 56 H. 664, 548 P.2d 271. Intent being essential element of attempt, charge of attempt to commit theft was insufficient where there was no allegation of intent. 61 H. 177, 599 P.2d 285. Instruction concerning "substantial step." 63 H. 105, 621 P.2d 381. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscuffent/vo114_ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 7 of 8 Concealment of clothes in bag was a substantial step in the course of attempted theft. 67 H. 581, 698 P.2d 293. Sexual assault in the fourth degree and attempted sexual assault in the fourth degree are included-offenses of attempted sexual assault in the second degree, within the meaning of §701-109(4)(c). 79 H. 46, 897 P.2d 973. Defendant charged with attempted murder, in violation of §707-701.5 and this section, may be convicted of attempted manslaughter, in violation-of this section and §707-702(2). 80 H. 27, 904 P.2d 912. This section combined with §707-702(1)(a) does not give rise to the offense of attempted manslaughter. 80 H. 27, 904 P.2d 912. A_person commits the offense of attempted prohibited possession of a firearm, pursuant to subsections (1)(b) and (3), and §.134-7(b), if he or she intentionally engages in conduct that, under the circumstances as he-or she believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in his or her commission of the offense of prohibited possession of a firearm. 93 H. 199, 998 P.2d 479. As the offense of attempted prohibited possession of a firearm under §134-7 does not include a result-of-conduct element and subsection (2) does not therefore apply, trial court instruction erroneously defined the state of mind necessary to prove the offense of attempted prohibited possession of a firearm as something less than intentional, as required by subsection (1)(b). 93 H. 199, 998 P.2d 479. Pursuant to §§701-109(4)(b), 134-7(b), and subsections (1)(b) and (3), attempted prohibited possession of a firearm is an included offense of prohibited possession of a firearm. 93 H. 199, 998 P.2d 479. Crime of attempted manslaughter is an included offense of attempted murder. 7 H. App. 291, 757 P.2d 1175. Trial court must instruct jury as to what specific facts jury must find before it decides whether defendant is guilty of attempted sexual assault in first degree. 77 H. 177 (App.), 880 P.2d 1224. Where there was no evidence, independent of defendant's extrajudicial confession, of the corpus delicti of attempted sexual assault of victim by defendant, defendant's conviction reversed. 103 H. 490 (App.), 83 P.3d 753. Trial court's omission of the "strongly corroborative" paragraph in the attempted assault in the second degree instructions was presumptively prejudicial and omission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 104 H. 517 (App.), 92 P.3d 1027. There was insufficient evidence that defendant took a substantial step toward the distribution of at least one-eighth ounce of methamphetamine in defendant's possession where there was no evidence that defendant had engaged in negotiations, offered, or agreed to distribute any of the methamphetamine found in defendant's possession. 107 H. 144 (App.), 111 P.3d 39. Discussed: 86 H. 1, 946 P.2d 955. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vo114_ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-0500... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 8 of 8 §705-500 Commentary: 1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 26 (1960). 2. Under this code conventional arson has been incorporated as one form of criminal property damage, see Chapter 708. 3. Prop. Mich. Rev. Cr. Code, comments at 82. 4. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 39-43 (1960). 5. M.P.C. §5.01(2), Proposed Official Draft 81-82 (1962). 6. Cf., e.g., the definitions of "recklessness" and "negligence" in §702-206. 7. Packers, The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev. 594, 601 (1963). 8. Id. quoting from Kurland, Religion and the Law 15 (1962). 9. E.g., the corroborative function stated in subsection (3). 10. The person would, however, be guilty of having attempted a lesser offense involving falsification. See Chapter 710, Part V. 11. See, for a general discussion, M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 47-68. Previous Vo114 Ch0701-0853 Next http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vo114 ChO701-O853[HRS0705[HRS 0705-0500... 4/28/2009 JIRS Page 1 of 5 e PART III. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY §705-520 Criminal conspiracy. A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime: (1) He agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them will engage in or solicit the conduct or will cause or solicit the result specified by the definition of the offense; and (2) He or another person with whom he conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] COMMENTARY ON §705-520 The offense of criminal conspiracy provides for intervention by law- enforcement agencies into preparatory conduct prior to consummation of a substantive penal offense and it provides for dealing with "special dangers incident to group activity."[1] Despite the necessity of providing some basis for intervention into criminal preparation and combination, conspiracy offenses have been subject to criticism because they have been used as a vehicle for vague charges, wholesale joinder of defendants, and circumvention of the rules of evidence. Sections 705-520 through 525 attempt to rationalize the law of conspiracy and to eliminate, as much as possible, areas of potential abuse. Conspiratorial objective. Section 705-520 provides that the conspiratorial objective must be the commission of a crime. Undesirable, but noncriminal, behavior, such as civil frauds, cannot be made the subject of the penal law through broad application of a conspiracy charge.[2] In those relatively few instances where activities are made criminal only when engaged in by a group, and not if engaged in by an individual, e.g., anti- trust legislation, they should be dealt with independently in special conspiracy provisions which should be precise in defining the conduct proscribed. Unilateral approach. The Code's formulation of the definition of criminal conspiracy, and its exclusion of certain defenses in.§705- 523, takes a unilateral rather than bilateral or multilateral approach to the offense. Unlike the prior definition based on the concurrence of "two or more persons," the Code focuses on a given defendant and states what conduct on the defendant's part is sufficient to establish the defendant's liability for criminal conspiracy. Group liability is not necessary.. The actor's agreement does not require a "meeting of the minds" with one or more other persons; the Code does not require that at least two persons be guilty of a criminal conspiracy. The "agreement" on the part of a "co-conspirator" might be feigned;- but this has no bearing on the defendant's individual liability. Implicit in the general formulation of §705-520, and made specific by §705-523, is the concept that the defendant's liability is in no way affected by the immunity, irresponsibility, or incapacity of the person with whom http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2007No114 ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS 0705-0520.h... 4/28/2009 HRS Page 2 of 5 the defendant conspires. Furthermore, under the unilateral approach of §705-520, the failure to prosecute, or the unavailability for prosecution, or the prior acquittal of a co-conspirator would not affect the defendant's liability. Definition of conspiracy. The greatest difficulty in formulating a definition of conspiracy, and other inchoate crimes, is relating its preparatory nature to the host of substantive offenses to which it might be applicable. One difficulty common to the definition of all inchoate crimes is that the definition must be expressed in terms of preparation to commit another crime which is the object of the preparation; the definition must take account of both the policy of the inchoate crime and the varying elements, culpability requirements and policies of all substantive crimes.[3] The Code requires that the culpability sufficient to establish liability for criminal conspiracy be intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime. The problem presents itself most acutely in cases where the defendant's "relationship to a criminal plan is essentially peripheral."[4] Thus, for example, one who rents or agrees to rent premises to another knowing that the premises will be used for an illegal activity (e.g., house of prostitution, narcotics den, or gambling casino) would not be guilty of conspiring with another to commit the crime unless it is proved that he intends to promote or facilitate the illegal operation. Mere knowledge of probable illegal use is not sufficient. To some extent, the defendant's ability or inability to control the situation takes on evidentiary significance with relation to the defendant's intent. For example, if the defendant is one of a number of malt dealers and the defendant sells the commodity to a person known to run an illegal still, the basis for finding an intent to promote or facilitate the operation may be considerably less than in the case where the defendant is the only available supplier. In the former case, the defendant's refusal to sell would probably not have any effect on the illegal operation. Moreover, the presence of other malt dealers would mean that the continued operation of the still would not necessarily mean more business for the defendant. In the latter case, the defendant's refusal to sell might prevent the operation of the illegal still, and the defendant's monopoly position provides an incentive for future sales. Furthermore, regardless of the state of mind required by the definition of a substantive offense to establish culpability with respect to proscribed conduct or results, the Code requires intentional behavior for conspiracy. This can best be illustrated by borrowing two examples from the Model Penal Code commentary. Thus, it would not be sufficient, as it is under the attempt draft, if the actor only believed that the result would be produced but did not consciously plan or desire to produce it. For example... if two persons plan to destroy a building by detonating a bomb, though they know and believe that there are http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2007No114 Ch0701-0853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-0520.h... ,4/28/2009 HRS Page 3 of 5 inhabitants in the building who will be killed by the explosion, they are nevertheless guilty only of a conspiracy to destroy the building and not of a conspiracy to kill the inhabitants. While this result may seem unduly restrictive from the viewpoint of the completed crime, it is necessitated by the extremely preparatory behavior that may be involved in conspiracy. Had the crime been completed or had the preparation progressed even to the stage of an attempt, the result would be otherwise. As to the attempt, knowledge or belief that the inhabitants would be killed would suffice. As to the completed crime, the complicity draft covers -the matter, despite its general requirement of a purpose to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, by the special provision of Section 2.06(4).[5] This provides that where causing a particular result is an element of a_crime, a person is an accomplice in the crime if he was an accomplice in the behavior that caused the result and shared the same purpose or knowledge with respect to the result that is required by the definition of the crime. - 'A fortiori, where recklessness or negligence suffices for the actor's culpability with respect to a result element of a substantive crime--where, for example, homicide through negligence is made criminal--there could not be a conspiracy to commit that crime. This should be distinguished, however, from a crime defined in terms of conduct that creates a risk of harm, such as reckless driving or driving above a certain speed limit. In this situation the conduct rather than any result it may produce is the element of the crime, and it would suffice for guilt of conspiracy that the actor's purpose is to promote or facilitate such conduct - for example, if he urged the driver of the car to go faster and faster.[6] The Model Penal Code commentary leaves open the question of whether a defendant can be guilty of criminal conspiracy if the defendant is not aware of the existence of attendant circumstances specified by the definition of the substantive offense which is the object of the conspiracy.[7] This is of obvious importance in those crimes which do not require that the defendant act intentionally or knowingly with respect to attendant circumstances. It does not seem wise to leave this question to resolution by future interpretation. It seems clear, and it is the position of the Code, that, because of the preparatory nature of conspiracy, intention to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense requires an awareness on the part of the conspirator that the circumstances exist. Nature of the agreement. The agreement required by the Code is a consensus, "which need not, of course, be formal or, indeed, explicit in the sense that it is put into words."[8] Moreover, the consensus need not, as the discussion on the general unilateral approach of the Code would indicate, be characterized by sincerity on the part of the defendant's co-conspirator. Overt act required. The Code requires that an overt act be done in http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2007NoII4 Ch070l-0853/fMS0705/HRS_0705-0520.h... 4/28/2009 $HRS _ Page 4 of 5 pursuance to a conspiracy. Previous Hawaii law, following the common law,[9] specifically rejected the requirement of an overt act.[10] The Code imposes this additional requirement because the inchoate nature of the offense requires some indicia of a settled intention. ,The overt act need not be a substantial step as defined in §705-500 but may be any act in pursuance of the conspiratorial purpose. Prior law. Prior Hawaii law was somewhat vague in defining conspiracy. The nature of the agreement required was apparently left to an intuitive understanding of the word "conspire."[11] The Code avoids some confusion-by requiring that the conspirators "agree" upon penally proscribed conduct or result. No state of mind was specifically required, but the formulation of the previous conspiracy definition in effect required, as the Code does specifically, that the defendant act intentionally.[12] The prior law made criminal a conspiracy to achieve a noncriminal objective. A conspiracy to maintain a suit known to be groundless is made criminal.[13] Unless malicious prosecution, traditionally a civil tort, is made a criminal offense, the Code eliminates it and other noncriminal wrongs, as a possible objective of a criminal conspiracy. - Hawaii was also in accord with the majority of jurisdictions in taking the bilateral or multilateral approach discussed above.[14] The problem of a conspiracy prosecution failing for both conspirators simply because one is found innocent or immune to prosecution has apparently never reached the Supreme Court of Hawaii. However, the Code's unilateral approach, as described above, obviates entirely such potential problems. Case Notes Substantial direct and circumstantial evidence existed from which jury could have convicted defendant. 64 H. 65, 637 P.2d 407. Jury may render defendant guilty of conspiracy and not guilty of the substantive offense. 69 H. 363, 742 P.2d 369. Complaint sufficiently alleged all material elements of offense of criminal conspiracy and thus not fatally defective. 81 H. 198, 915 P.2d 672. §705-520 Commentary: 1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 96 (1960). 2. Cf. 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy "either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose") which "has grown through judicial ..interpretation to cover 'virtually any impairment of the Government's operating efficiency.'" M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 103 (1960) quoting Goldstein, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2007NoII4 ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-052O.h... 4/28/2009 ,,HRS Page 5 of 5 68 Yale L.J. 461n (1959). 3. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 106 (1960). 4. Id. at 107. 5. See §702-223 of this.Code. 6. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 109-110 (1960). 7. Id. at 113. 8. Id. at 117. 9. Id. at 140. 10. H.R.S. §728-3. 11. H.R.S. §728-1. 12. H.R.S. §728-1. 13. Id. §728-1(c). 14. Id. Previous Vo114 Ch0701-0853 Next http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2007/Vol l4_ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-052O.h... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 1 of 2 §705-521 Scope of conspiratorial relationship. If a person guilty of criminal conspiracy, as defined in section 705-520, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring to commit the crime with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] COMMENTARY ON §705-521 This section is addressed to the problem of defining the scope of the conspiratorial relationship. Organized crime may involve a network of activity of which the defendant's conduct is but a small part. For example, the narcotics traffic may involve smuggling, possession, and sale of the narcotic. Questions affecting multiple prosecutions, joint prosecution, admissibility of evidence, and the statute of limitations have conventionally turned on the scope of the conspiracy charged. The Code divorces procedural and evidentiary problems from the definition or scope of criminal conspiracy. Procedural problems are handled separately in §705-524 (dealing with venue) and in the rules of court and statutes relating to penal procedure. The definition of §705-520 in effect limits the scope of the conspiracy to those crimes which the defendant intends to promote or facilitate. Section 705-521 limits the scope of the conspiracy "in term of parties, to those with whom he agreed, except where the same crime that he conspired to commit is, to his knowledge, also the object of a conspiracy between one of his co-conspirators and another person or persons."[1] In cases involving a broad scope of criminal operations entailing numerous different offenses, the focus is on whether the defendant knows that the defendant's co-conspirator has conspired with another person to commit the same crime. Focusing separately on each criminal objective, it is possible to conclude that different members of a criminal network are guilty of different conspiracies. Thus, in a narcotics operation, a smuggler, a distributor, and a retailer may all be guilty of conspiring that the retailer possess the narcotics, whereas the retailer may not be guilty of a conspiracy to have the smuggler engage in smuggling. The retailer may have no knowledge of or may be completely indifferent to the source or character of the retailer's supply. Agreement under §§705-520 and 521 need not be explicit; it can, of course, be inferred from mutual facilitation and purpose. Section 705-521 specifically provides that in cases where there is no direct correspondence or cooperation, the defendant may be guilty of conspiracy with other persons, possibly unidentified, if the defendant knows that the defendant's co-conspirator has conspired with them to commit the same offense. The inquiry which the.Code requires is more complicated than that allowed under current and past doctrine which, in some statements,[2] has permitted a member of an illegal operation to be guilty of a http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo114_ChO7Ol-O853/HRS0705/HRS 0705-052... 4/28/2009 House Bill Page 2 of 2 conspiracy involving all of the operation's criminal objectives no matter how remote from the defendant's individual involvement. We recognize that the inquiry demanded by the Draft will often be more detailed and sometimes will be more complicated than that called for under looser, current doctrine. We submit that any greater difficulty involved is justified by the need for effective means of limiting a conspirator's criminal liability and preventing the other abuses possible under looser approaches toward the scope of a conspiracy. Further, we submit that the focus upon each individual's culpability with regard to each criminal objective should be more helpful to juries than the broad formulations with which they are often charged today; and that it accords more closely with traditional standards for testing criminal liability.[3] Previous Hawaii law made no reference to the scope of conspiracy in terms of the parties involved.- §705-521 Commentary: 1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 119 (1960). 2. See United States v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1939). 3. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 10, comments at 126 (1960). Previous Vol14 Ch0701-0853 Next http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscuffent/Vol l4_ChO701-O853/HRS0705/HRS_0705-052... 4/28/2009 Page 1 of 2 . o r §710-1030 Hindering prosecution in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of hindering prosecution in the second degree if, with the intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for a crime, he renders assistance to such person. (2) Hindering prosecution in the second degree is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1] C0144ENTARY ON §§710-1028 TO 1030 These sections, along with §§710-1013 (compounding) and 710-1018 (securing the proceeds of an offense), would have been treated at common law under the heading of accessory after the fact. However, in keeping with the philosophy stated in those earlier sections, liability for conduct relating to an offense which has already been consummated ought to be determined more with regard to the dangerousness of the particular post-offense acts involved than with regard to the dangerousness of the prior substantive offense. Thus, the conduct involved in these sections is treated sui generis as a form of obstructing justice. The offense of hindering prosecution focuses on the fact that the real danger involved in such conduct is that of subverting or obstructing the administration of justice.-[l] The particular nature of the prior offense is important only to the extent that it is an index of the general gravity which the associated obstruction represents. However, the gravity of the obstruction is not necessarily equivalent with the gravity of the prior offense. The Code incorporates this index, to the extent that it has value, by relating the crime which the person assisted has committed to the grading of §§710-1029 and 1030. The underlying conduct involved in these sections is that of rendering assistance to another. Such assistance is defined in terms of attempts to evade or impede justice at any stage of the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of a potential or actual offender. Where the underlying offense is a class A, B or C felony,' hindering prosecution is a class C felony. Where the underlying offense is a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor, or where culpability on the part of the other with respect to class or grade of the underlying cause cannot be proved, hindering prosecution is a misdemeanor. Previous Hawaii law had no specific provisions equivalent to these sections. Conduct covered by these sections would have been covered, in part, under the former sections relating to principals and accessories,[2] or escape.[3] Prior coverage was spotty and inconsistent. For instance, the accessory section provided no liability for acts of concealment where the underlying offense was not punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.[4] Where an escapee was concealed or harbored, the offense was a misdemeanor[5] notwithstanding the fact that the escape was punishable, under prior law, by only a three-year term. http://www.capitol.hawaii.govdn-scurrent/Vo114 ChO701-O853/HRS0710/HRS_0710-103... 4/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 The Code attempts to treat the offense of hindering prosecution in a general manner rather than on an ad hoc basis. Hindering the apprehension of an escapee is not treated separately; escape being an offense, one who hinders the apprehension of an escapee would,come within the coverage of §710-1030. Because-the conduct is treated generally, its coverage is more complete and the gradation of offenses more rational than under prior law. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON-§§710-1028 TO 1030 The Code differs from the Proposed Draft in that the offense of hindering prosecution in the first degree includes assistance rendered in connection with a class C felony, as well as class A and B felonies. Act 149, Session Laws of 1997, amended this section to provide that a person commits the offense of hindering prosecution in the first degree if with.-the intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for murder in any degree, the person renders assistance to the other person. The legislature found that the offense of murder warrants punishment that is sufficient to fit the grave consequences of the crime. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 1600. §§710-1028 To 1030 Commentary: 1. See M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 9, comments at 195 (1959). 2. H.R.S., Chapter 704. 3. Id. §740-3. 4. Id. §704-5. 5. Id. §740-3. Previous Vo114 Ch0701-0853 Next http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrentfVo114 Ch0701-0853/HRS0710/HRS_0710-103... 4/27/2009