Laserfiche WebLink
complaint in accordance with United States Code, Subsection 4, Misprision of Felony, to violations of the federal RICO act, identified as extortion, bank fraud, money laundering, by public corruption in the Hawai‘i island government by a RICO enterprise of corrupt government officials. Your actions under the color of authority appear to be somewhat misunderstood by you. It appears that this Board believes they have the authority to act without the responsibility of action. I assure you, and I am sure counsel Renee Schoen and former district court Judge Henricks here, will inform you that a deprivation of rights under the color of law exposes you personally, persona, in addition to personally public, to civil liabilities of the person injured. I will be seeking pro bono counsel in order to file such civil cases in state and federal courts. So again, I let your conscience be your guide, but the approval to dismiss Petition No. 2012-08 without the identity of the project which is funded, in answer to my complaint and petition, will be identified as confession by this Board to accessory after the fact, in violation of the United States Code, Subsection 3, to conspiracy to defraud the United States government, deprivation of the rights of a citizen, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. Thank you very much. <br /> <br /> Mr. Balsis called up Jerome Warren, who had signed up to testify on agenda item 5b. <br /> <br />MR. WARREN: I came here today to ask you to please don’t close the file on my petition, 2012-10. Your reason for denial, which was given at the last meeting--Judge Henricks stated that Bobby Command’s atomic bomb statement was appropriate, and I say it wasn’t fair for Bobby Command to make such an outlandish statement when I was just trying to get to the nuts and bolts of what’s wrong. And also, I have not received a written verdict. I was here last month. Nothing came in the mail. And I did not receive a notice of today’s business. I didn’t even know I was on the agenda, and my petition was in writing. I deserve a written reply and written notices of follow-up business. This is standard operating procedure in any sort of business like this. We petition in writing, we receive communication via letter. And that was also your past practice. I’ve had other business before other boards of ethics, and that’s how they conducted their business. So going on to another group of situations here. My complaint about the Ethics Board was not acknowledged. Back—previous to this, I came to an Ethics Board hearing just to get the format and the feel. And on that day, I noticed on the way out that the agenda was posted improperly. I called OIP on the spot. I called them from a pay phone, and they said write a letter. I wrote a letter and again, no response. So only yesterday I found out that this business would be conducted today. I called OIP, and they are going to look into what happened to my letter, about how you do your business. And I also I talked with Senator Coffman’s staff yesterday, just on short notice, and they are interested in how you do your business. And I was told by the staff to please ask you again today to just put this on next month’s agenda. Please try do some investigation about how this bus system is operated. So please don’t close this case today. Let Senator Coffman do his study into both the OIP complaint which they received from me and anything—just the manner in which you’re conducting your business, that is not responding to your petitioners as should be done, in writing, when we petition you in writing. So got a few more things here. So please put my petition on next month’s agenda. A one-month delay will do no harm. My complaint is legitimate. My evidence needs to be looked into. I’ve got it all in that bag there, and it’s been sitting there for a month, and I only had less than