Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.018 1998-2000 To: All Members of the Hawaii County Council From: Richard Carter, Sr. nme..----. Ma~or, Hawaii Count Police Department (Retired) Q.ats__.-----~~~~ - I Y County (rouncJ_I_ Re: Comm.272.005 Executive Session -William Silva et al., v. County of Hawaii, et al., Civil No, 97-622 (Hilo) I am a retired County of Hawaii police major with 30 years of service. I am requesting that the members of the Hawaii County Council vote YES on the request to appeal the recent court decision in the above mentioned case. Reasons for the appeal are numerous and I am submitting written testimony in addition to oral testimony. 1. Judge Riki May Amano erred in numerous rulings made in favor of the plaintiffs. 2. She refused to allow testimony informing the jury that Guy Paul made a deal with the plaintiffs. He gave them $10 each to give testimony in hopes that it would lead to bigger things. He further denied liability. As far as I am concerned when Paul made the arrangement it was the same as pleading NO CONTEST in a criminal case and the judge finds him guilty. This is evidence that the jurty should have had. It is the same as if a witness in a criminal case made a deal with the police or prosecutors. The defense can question the witness on this deal or agreement. Amano would not allow this. Why? Is it because she was angry because the case was not settled out of court as she wanted? 3. Chief Victor Vierra was also released from this lawsuit. Why? I ask you how can the chiefs, the commanders of the Police Department, the ones who should be and are responsible for whatever happens, be released and two subordinates are made to take the jerk. You can call them scapegoats or sacrificial Iambs. These chiefs or captains of the ship, did not go down with their ship. They made an exit stage right. 4. Citizens of Hawaii County should know that in 1988 when Chief Paul stated that he Found a "cancer" in the police department, and that this cancer related to police promotions, gambling, political fundraising, 6-5 Comm. No. 272' ~ 1 g File Na-~- ~-~1~ Ref. To: ~ t~U~C(.t.. Ref. Date JAN 0 5 2000 sports betting, drugs, and involvement with organized crime, the only accusation that was proven truthful was the oral interview of the promotional board. Why? Because the officers were doing as they were ORDERED. I say "ordered" because if you did not do as you were told, retaliation -Guy Paul style -was sure to follow. These officers did not lie when the complaints were made known. They admitted their parts in the system. The Hawaii Police Commission, under the direction of Jackie Blackshear, knew of these complaints. Blackshear dismissed all of these issues, as well as other criminal acts involving Guy Paul. Judge Amano would not allow this information to be used in testimony. Nor would she allow Jeff Choi, now Judge Choi, to be called as a witness. The civil service also knew of this information. The prosecutor and corporation council also were aware of the goings on created by Chief Paul. No investigation of any nature against Guy Paul was ever initiated. Mayors Dante Carpenter, Lorraine Jitchaku Inouye, Bernard Akana, and Larry Tanimoto continued to pay the bills far Paul. Paul states that these promotions were under the leadership of Carvalho and, more importantly, De Morales. This is false. The tampering with promotions was going on in the mid 70's when Paul took over the reins as chief of police. I know this for a fact. I was not promoted for 12 years because of personal differences with Paul. Paul made it known to others, ie. Robert Pung, Martin Ka'aua, Wayne Carvalho, Frank De Luz, and Steve Yamashiro, to name a few, that he would never promote me. (This is similar to his remarks about not promoting John De Sa to major. Henry Silva was promoted instead.) 5. Now we go to the rule of five and the right of the chief to promote. If the chief of police, as per HRS statute, has the right to promote, was there, in fact, any impropriety? This question should be answered by a higher court. A civil suit cannot answer this question. A court of law - the supreme court should. If the answer is yes, the entire suit should be dismissed. If the ruling is otherwise, then Paul admits that he told De Morales, Todd and Victorine that he woud never promote De Sa. What were the Police Commission, the prosecutor, corporation council, mayors, managing director, now Judge Ron Ibarra, and the county council doing at that time? They all knew the facts of the investigation, yet nothing was done. Is this justice? Is this fair? There are numerous other reasons for an appeal. 6. Amano also refused to allow federal judge Ezra's ruling dated November 19, 1997, on why he threw the original federal lawsuit out of his court. In his ruling ,Judge Ezra stated that the plaintiffs did provide evidence that Carvalho and DeMorales, after being informed of the names of Paul's favored candidates for promotions, acted on these orders. While there is no evidence that the actions taken by Carvalho and DeMorales amount to extortion, there is evidence that extortion may have been committed by Guy Paul when he gave Carvalho and DeMorales the names of favored candidates. Because Carvalho and DeMorales thought they had to act pursuant to the orders given to them by Guy Paul, Paul's actions may be considered extortion under H. R. S. 707-764(2)(K). Both Carvalho and DeMorales indicated that they felt if they did not comply with Paul's orders they would be substantially injured in their careers. Exhibit 19, Plaintiff's Opposistion to Defendant County and HCPD's motion, at 51-53, 78-79, and Exhibit 17, Plaintiff's Opposition, at 91. While neither Carvalho or DeMorales stated that Paul verbally threatened them with losing their jobs, they both indicated that they felt there were serious repercussion for not following Paul's orders. Nonetheless, contrary to Plaintiff's argument, Carvalho and DeMorales did not commit the extortion. While they acted on the information provided by Guy Paul, plaintiffs had not shown their actions were extortionate. Rather, the evidence shows that Carvalho and DeMorales may have been alleged victims of Paul's EXTORTIONATE ACTS. 7. Attorney Brian DeLima should have disqualified himself from representing Guy Paul in this civil lawsuit because he was on the County Council and took part in negotiations and voting on this lawsuit. I submit County Council executive session minutes dated Wednesday, August 24, 1994, as evidence. This document shows not only an appearance of impropriety but impropriety itself. These acts of unethical conduct should have been sent to the Office of Disciplinary Council. It shows that DeLima took part in discussons with Corporation Counsel Wurderman regarding rigged promotion exams. At that time DeLima and Corporation Counsel had knowledge that Guy Paul ordered Carvalho and DeMorales to recommend his favored candidates. The executive session minutes also contains discussions by Mr. Wurderman, DeLima and Councilman Rosehill about punitive damages and that Paul was already indeminified (Paul at that time was represented by Chris Yuen). DeLima even stated that he could recommend a settlement. 8. Now, much has been said about the DEMORALES CLIQUE and how he ran the Police Department from 19$4 to his retirement in 1994. Also, that I was one of the members of this clique. I have known both DeMorales and Carvalho for over 45 years. We have had a close relationship before we became police officers, however, as friends we have never compromised our professional positions. Our primary concern, then and now, is the welfare of the Police Department and the citizens of this county. If this makes us a clique, then we're guilty. CONCLUSION: Guy Paul, and not the defendants in this case, destroyed the best police department in the State of Hawaii and very likely in the United States. I ask that you vote for justice and approve this request for an appeal. R L Rlj, SR. JANUARY 4, 2000