2014-05-01HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CONNECTIONSCBESSSPP12-138

Home

witnesses brought by the intervenor. There were no witnesses to challenge at all any of the findings by Mr. Thiel or Mr. Rowell, which brings us, brings me to the next point. There were a lot of questionable practices that finally came up or were exposed in the hearing. And that’s because the witnesses were not only placed under oath, as they all are here sitting at the table, but now they’re subject to cross examination. And so, basically, in terms of all the overwhelming testimony you’ve received concerning traffic from Mr. Melvin Yokota, what turns out, happens is under oath, he’s actually an electrical engineer. He’s actually never done a traffic report or submitted a traffic report. His firm that he works with does big electrical systems. The closest he’s ever gotten to any traffic report was designing the electrical system for an intersection with lights. Yet, when you look at the testimony that you’ve gotten from Mr. Yokota, that certainly doesn’t comport with that impression. He gives you a different impression, but when he’s finally examined under oath, he had to reveal he’s an electrical engineer. Followed no industry standards with respect to traffic. Mr. Yoshioka, former judge Mr. Yoshioka. The suggestion that he was acting in an impartial manner for these proceedings is false. He actually tried to become an intervenor half way through, which was rejected by the hearings officer appropriately. What also came out in his cross examination was that he’s been having a law firm in Hilo ghostwrite some of the things that he’s been submitting to you as a Planning Commission which, as Mr. Heaukulani knows, may be a violation of the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. There’s a downtown firm that’s not only been writing questions for Mr. Yoshioka but also the material that he submitted to the Planning Commission. And what Mr. Fujioka—Yoshioka—also said was that Mr. Fuke gave him information that he included in his submissions to the Planning Commission and to the hearings officer, which brings us to Mr. Fuke. During that particular hearing, Mr. Fuke gave contradictory, misleading, and inaccurate statements. He denied giving any information to Judge Yoshioka. And also, he represented that no school in the State of Hawai‘i or certainly on this island was put on Agricultural land. When we pointed out under cross examination that Kamehameha Schools in Kea‘au has been on Agricultural land and the predominant part of Kamehameha Schools in Kea‘au is on Agricultural land, he just said, I stand corrected. Now, that would be fine if you have let’s say a lawyer commenting about a traffic issue. You know, it’s a lay opinion. But, you have somebody who used to be the Planning Director here for the County of Hawai‘i. You have somebody who is a trained professional in planning. You have somebody who makes a living, a very good living, off of land use management. So when he says there, and stands at the podium to the Planning Commission and tells you that no school has been put on Agricultural land, under cross examination, he had to admit that his prior statements were false. And those are some of the questionable practices that these individuals have been bringing up throughout the course of this proceeding. Unfortunately, we couldn’t subpoena everybody under oath or get them under oath. They’re people here, and some person, one individual in particular, who was actually actively ducking our process server. But she knows who she is. In terms of the reasons for action, we’re requesting that you as a Planning Commission reject the hearings officer’s decision. It lacks any legal authorities or legal citation and omits key 15 EXHIBIT F