2011-08-10 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

We continue on. All of those previous laws that you have been read constitute a violation of the federal RICO Act, as defined by United States Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96, Subsection 1961, definition. (1) racketeering activity means (a) any act or threat involving extortion. In addition, (b). Any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions. Section 133 relating to financial institutions and bank fraud. Section 1512 relating to tampering with a witness, victim or informant. Extortion. The federal RICO law and racketeering activity adds an additional penalty to all those previous charges. It triples all civil and criminal actions, so each one of you right now, by your own actions, as witnessed by your own testimony and words, have committed these acts, and you are facing the rest of your life in prison. I’m sure that the chairman here will be more than happy to see his grandchildren when he leaves prison, not seeing them raised. But that in itself is immaterial to what we have here. We have a situation here where the constitutions are for the rights of all people. By this board and other boards and commissions of the County of Hawaii and state, by depriving me of my constitutional rights and freedoms of due process, equal protections of the law, deprive all others. By depriving me of coming forth and exposing the bank fraud and racketeering that the citizens of Hawaii are paying $60,000 in interest and no benefit, deprives all the citizens of their money. The fact that this board refuses to allow formal hearings to expose the violations of federal law in blocking and altering the Waiakea Streams and stream beds in Hilo, deprives all other people of the rights and protections of their safety. Right now, meeting across the street in the Aupuni Center is the FEMA regional managers and the new issuance of the flood—flood insurance rate maps. I have testified before them yesterday, and Eric Simmons has been served these documents. So I know that nothing’s going to change your mind here. You’re going to go forth and you’re going to approve all these, just like you’ve done everything else. You’ll approve the minutes. But while you’re reading through them, think to yourself: what if and when you are a defendant, and a federal prosecutor reads the minutes you’ve approved and asks you, Mr. Blatis [sic], were you aware that there were these actions taking place, as a financial institution manager? Or Judge Henricks, were you aware as a judge that such actions were in fact in violation of such laws? And Glen—I’m sorry I can’t pronounce your last name—but as a prison warden and teaching and raising and steering the youth, you would allow yourself to be impugned in this manner? And as a police officer, retired, upholding law, you find nothing wrong with all the information that you have been presented and documented evidence? I would say I’d leave it to your conscience and your sworn oath, as I know that Mr. Balstis [sic] here is a devout person, as he wore the mark of the ash in one board meeting. Is there such a commandment as thou shall not steal, as is being done with the interest paid to the Bank of Hawaii by the people? MR. DILL: Mr. Cole, you were— MR. COLE: --I’m not finished yet. Excuse me, please. MR. DILL: Oh, okay, I’m sorry. I just noticed that there’s an issue here. You’re referencing a Board of Ethics meeting held on 8/4/11 on page 2 of your email, so I just wanted to bring that up to you.