Laserfiche WebLink
TSUKAZAKI:Just for the record, I received this, the ApplicantÓs Motion to <br />Dismiss a few minutes ago. So I just, you know, wanted it to be clear that we havenÓt <br />presented any written argument on this, but IÓll try my best to address the points that he <br />has made here. <br />The Association filed a document that is required under the rules to be filed for standing. <br />The Association did that. To the extent that the signature wasnÓt notarized, that was <br />because the president of the board, whoÓs normally authorized to sign these documents, <br />was in Canada; and it was too difficult to go to an embassy which would, heÓd have to <br />travel from where he was to get to the embassy. So a facsimile signature was used. He <br />was able to fax back a signature. And, subsequently, we found the treasurer to be in <br />Seattle and was able to get him to sign it and have it acknowledged there, and then sent <br />back here. <br />So, you know, to a certain extent, there hasnÓt been complete compliance with the rule <br />regarding an acknowledgment. But I urge you to take a look at what the real issue is <br />here. And that is that you have entity next door, a neighbor, who I think would clearly be <br />recognized as having an interest which would allow standing to be conferred because that <br />interest is obviously different from any interest of the general public. The Association is <br />that entity, it represents all of those owners next door. The Association made a timely <br />filing. And I think given that the law of standing in Hawaii is very liberal, I think it <br />would be very dangerous, I think it would be reversible error if standing were denied in <br />this situation for what might be seen as a technical non-compliance with that rule. Again, <br />the document was filed timely, so all weÓre talking about is whe <br />The purpose of notarizing a signature is to determine whether that person, in fact, has the <br />authority to sign for the corporation, or for the association, or whatever organization it is. <br />I can tell you that we have, our firm was retained by the Board to represent the <br />Association. ThereÓs no doubt that the Association has authorized its officers, as well as <br />counsel, to move forward with this. So, I guess, the other side of the coin is if a signature <br />was originally acknowledged, does that, is that prejudicial error? Who has that <br />prejudiced? You know, it hasnÓt injured anybodyÓs interest. And weÓre looking at the <br />other side of the coin whether you would deny standing to an entity who would otherwise <br />be entitled to standing because of the legal interest on the basis of that technical issue. <br />So, again, we believe that the spirit of the rule was followed and there was a timely filing. <br />And we believe that in the law of Hawaii thereÓs a very strong preference to favor <br />standing when an interest can be demonstrated, which is different from that of the general <br />public. So, in that context, we would respectfully request a standing be granted to my <br />client in this case. <br />FUJIKAWA:Mr. Vitousek? <br />VITOUSEK:Yeah, just briefly. WeÓre not arguing about standing. Standing is <br />not the issue here. The issue is whether they complied with the rules in filing a petition. <br />So even if they had perfect standing, the issue is still, you know did they comply with the <br />4 <br /> <br />