2026-5-15 Appellant's draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss_v1.pdf

Home

(2) The legal authority under which the hearing is to be held; (3) The particular sections of the statutes and rules involved; (4) An explicit statement in plain language of the issues involved and the facts alleged by the agency in support thereof; provided that if the agency is unable to state the issues and facts in detail at the time the notice is served, the initial notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved, and thereafter upon application a bill of particulars shall be furnished; 35. According to BOA Rule 3-12, Rohr has until May 17, 2026 to file a Memorandum in Opposition in response to Appellee Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss dated May 8, 2026. The Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss is untimely and must be denied for lack of procedural due process. 36. According to BOA Rule 3-12, Rohr has until May 21, 2026 to file a Memorandum in Opposition in response to Appellee Director's of Public Works' Motion to Dismiss dated May 11, 2026. The Director of Public Work's Motion to Dismiss is untimely and must be denied for lack of procedural due process. 37. Appellant did not agree to waive any of the Board's rules. CONCLUSION: As a matter of law and due process, Appellant requests that the Board members deny the two Motions to Dismiss for untimeliness and failure to follow the Boards Rules. DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 15, 2026 Respectfully Submitted, /sl Claudia Rohr CLAUDIA ROHR, Appellant 7