Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-13 Board of Ethics Minutes HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:00 a.m. to 11:22 a.m. Department of Liquor Control – Conference room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Members and staff present: John E. K. Dill, Chair David Heaukulani, Vice Chair Arne Henricks, Member Bernard Balsis, Member Glen Hisashima, Member Renee N. C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary (Blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech.) 1. CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m.: Mr. Dill called the meeting to order and welcomed new board member Glen Hisashima. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS MR. DILL: We have Mr. Dan Cole speaking on agenda items 2011—I guess petition 2011-01, -02, -04, -05, -07, and -10. One, two, three, four, five—six items. Mr. Cole? MR. COLE: Good morning, board members. My previous caveats before the board remain intact here. And I’d also like to notify you that I’ve placed a formal objection to these meetings as violations of the Hawai‘i Sunshine Law with the Office of Information Practices, and I have filed a _________ with the district court across the street. The obscuring in the minutes of the petitioners and of these proceedings after they have been presented before the board in previous meetings is a violation of the rules and procedures of this board, which have the effect of law, and is not in the interest of the transparency of the public. That being said, I would like to also make a note that sitting on the board is a manager of a financial institution and a former state judge. I caveat the board again. The information I am presenting to this board is in accordance with and required by United States Code Title 18, Subsection 4, misprision of felony. I am bringing forth actual knowledge of violations of law cognizant by a court of the United States, identified as Criminal Title 18, United States Code, Subsection 1344, bank fraud, institutional fraud. The—I have signed up for all items here as all items are related. I will link them all together as one testimony. The appearance today for the County Finance Director—I’m requesting that all these petitions be given formal inquiries, where testimony, sworn testimony, depositions, may be taken. I present evidence to you now of the actual commission of United States Code 1344, bank fraud, and violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, general fraud. On 2 March of this year, the Hawai‘i County, by the signatures thereof witnessed thereto of Mayor William Kenoi and Director of Finance, County of Hawai‘i, Nancy E. Crawford, did so authorize the issuance and sale to Bank of Hawai‘i of $10 million of series B bond anticipation notes with a maturity date of September the 2nd, 2-11, with an interest rate of 1.22%, identified as CUSIP number—I spell C-U-S-I-P—number 41969CAE6. The actual custody of this note is held in Bank of New York Mellon, 1 Wall Street, 3 Floor, Window A. On the same date, upon selling to Bank of Hawai‘i $10 million of unauthorized County of Hawai‘i bond anticipation notes, for the authorization to the notes was identified as Bill 311, Draft 3, which was signed into law by Mayor Kenoi by his signature witnessed thereof on May the 4, two months after the issuance of the B bonds. At the same time, on March the 2nd, the County of Hawai‘i deposited into First Hawaiian Bank Account No. 20010201 the sum of $10 million, term date of 184 days with a maturity date of 2 September, 2001, identical to the series B bonds. The money was deposited at a percentage rate of 0.1225% and deposited by the Department of Finance, County of Hawai‘i, General Funds. Upon the same issuance of that, the County of Hawai‘i, as witnessed thereof by the signature of County Finance Director Nancy Crawford, issued the tax certificate of the County of Hawai‘i for exemption to tax of state and federal bonds. In addition, on that date, by her signature, the deputy—or the director of the County of Hawai‘i also submitted IRS form 8038G, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations, identified as general obligation bond series B with a maturity date of March the 2 2041, with an issue price of $5 million. Upon the same day, the County of Hawai‘i identifies that it offered to the Bank of Hawai‘i, solely—as did the sole offering of series B bonds to Bank of Hawai‘i—a series A bond for $10 million, identified here. So we have a situation that two bonds were apparently sold. The certificate of issuance, master certificate of issuance, clearly identifies the bonds were not authorized and therefore illegal in violation of the Hawai‘i County Charter, in violation of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, general fraud, in violation of the United States Code 18, Subsection 1344, bank fraud and pattern and history thereof, as two incidents occurred within ten years, constitutes under the definition of United States Code—or to Title 18, United States Code, 1961, Section 1, racketeering activity. The racketeering activity is to include the violations as my other petitions against Chairman John Dill, former prosecuting attorney Jay Kimura, current deputy— or current Corporation Counsel, County of Hawai‘i, Lincoln Ashida, as in Section A of Subsection 1 of Title 18, United States Code, 1961, is identified as a racketeering activity of extortion. The acts of Chairman John Dill, in conspiracy with Lincoln Ashida and Jay Kimura, constitute a violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 707-764, subjection (i), as a public official sworn taking action or withholding action in deprivation of a person’s rights. The deprivation of his rights are identified as the First Amendment rights of the federal constitution to petition the government in redress of grievance. The continuation of this board, whether I request a formal opinion—but the continuation of this board in this matter constitutes that you are all in violation of Title 18, Criminal Code of the United States Code, Subsection 3, accessory after the fact, pursuant to hindering the prosecution of, and the identification of, the items of bank fraud, extortion, and racketeering. I don’t really know what to say here, folks. I’ve been at this awhile. As you’ve all said, you’ve sworn an oath. This is deprivation of rights under the color of law, Section 242 of the United States Code, in conspiracy against rights, Section 241, 2 United States Code. Therefore, you have conspired with other individuals and agents of the county and state to instill upon me that you actually have the constitutional rights and authorities to deprive me or any person of their state and federal guaranteed rights and privileges. That is known as a violation of United States Code, Criminal Title 1542, sale into involuntary servitude, combined with the violations of 241 and 242, identify that you have committed violations of the 13 amendment against the person, where no person shall be held in slavery or involuntary servitude within the territories or states of the United States. Therefore, under Title 42 of the United States Code, I am able to file tort against you personally and severally outside of your official functions. I have a JS 44 form prepared for the U.S. District Court, District of Hawai‘i, on that matter at this time. It is understood that I have—the actions of this Board, should it go forth, I requested formal testimony where I may subpoena individuals and take sworn depositions and interrogatories. It is understood by my formal filing in this matter and in the court documents, I understand that my rights are to be anticipated to be deprived of me this day and that this board will somehow find a reason that they cannot proceed in these matters. So being said, you have been caveated. Thank you very much for your attention. MR. DILL: All right, thank you. Moving on to agenda item number 3. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 2011, MEETING (REGULAR SESSION) Mr. Heaukulani and Mr. Balsis both indicated they had no comments or corrections to make to the minutes. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Henricks voted aye. Mr. Dill recused himself. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2011-08: Officer’s request for an informal advisory opinion on whether the officer may sit on a State of Hawai‘i board. Ms. Schoen stated that she spoke with the officer and his staff, and he was again not able to attend the meeting. At the Board’s June meeting, it was discussed whether or not the petition should be dismissed until such time that the officer is prepared and able to attend. He could at that time file a new petition. Mr. Henricks asked whether the officer was planning to go forward with the petition, and Ms. Schoen said she did not know. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to continue the petition, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 3 b. Review of Gifts Disclosure Statements received from the following County Council members: (1) Brenda Ford (amended disclosure), (2) Donald Ikeda, (3) Dennis Onishi, (4) Brittany Smart, and (5) Dominic Yagong. Mr. Dill asked whether there were any comments, questions, or concerns regarding the disclosures. There were none. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve and file the disclosures, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2011-01: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics. MR. DILL: I will be handing this over to Mr. Bernard. So I will recuse myself. MR. HEAUKULANI: The Chairman has recused himself. I’m the vice chair. I understand, Arne, you recused yourself too in executive session? MR. HENRICKS: Which are we on, 20— MS. SCHOEN: No, let me just state for the record, Mr. Chair, if I may. Petitions Nos. 2011-01, -02, -04, and -05, the chair and vice chair recused themselves at the February 9th, 2011, meeting— MR. HEAUKULANI: --My bad. MR. BALSIS: That is correct. MS. SCHOEN: So you guys are out. MR. HEAUKULANI: Okay, I thought we were going to the Bank of Hawai‘i one. Okay. MS. SCHOEN: So Mr. Balsis will be taking over the chair for this initial review of those items. MR. HEAUKULANI: Okay, I got you. Thank you, counsel. MR. BALSIS: That leaves three of us, so we have a quorum. So at this time we will hear from the petitioner on 2011-01, if you have any further comments that you would like to make to your position. MR. COLE: Yes, I do. MR. BALSIS: We’ll be looking at each petition one by one. 4 MR. COLE: For the record, my request to the board that they identify who the petitioner is and who the county or government official is that the petition is against. MR. BALSIS: In this particular case, the petitioner is Dan A. Cole, and you are making a statement that under provision section 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b), that both Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida—well, he conspired with John Dill to deprive a person of their state and federal constitutional rights. MR. COLE: I thank you. It is understood that the deprivation of state and federal constitutional rights would obviously be a violation of the Hawai‘i County Code of fair and equal treatment, is that so noted. Again, I point out that Chair Dill did in fact receive and use evidence of exculpatory nature that he refused to present to the public. In addition, the communications from Corporation Counsel Ashida and Deputy Corporation Counsel Ulic [sic: Udovic], I believe, representing Emily Naeole, were not placed in communications of the record, so I had no idea they existed, therefore depriving me of equal protections of the law and equal—and due process. The actions under Hawai‘i Revised Statute Section 764-707 is extortion, a public official acting in a manner, or not acting in a manner, in deprivation of a person’s rights, property, or services. The services I was presenting, as defined by the legal definition in Black’s Law, I was presenting testimony in violation of federal RICO acts and in violation of Hawai‘i state laws that place the health, safety, and welfare of the people in jeopardy. The actions of Mr. Dill, in conspiracy and secret, as a fiduciary obligation he had sworn to defend and protect the state and federal constitutions, constituted a conspiracy under Criminal Title 18 of the United States Code, 241, conspiracy against rights and deprivation of my constitutional rights and freedom to petition the government in redress of grievance, due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and in so doing denying me due process, denied the people equal protection of the laws, to be identified as to an imminent peril to their health, safety, and welfare of the altering of a federal waterway flowing into the Hilo harbor known as the Waiakea Stream. The conspiracy of Counsel Lincoln Ashida, knowing and knowingly as a legal person, in conspiracy with John Dill and with your sitting counsel, knowingly tried to prevent me from coming to the June 9 meeting of 2009 by obscuring the names in the agenda as you have done today and by obscuring the location, obscuring the fact that I wasn’t given an agenda. I have called the same similarities that an investigation by the Office of Information Practices was opened. It’s now been two years since that investigation has been opened, and no determination has been made that the counsel of this board still obscures into the agenda meetings the name of the petitioners, the names of the county officials so accused, therefore depriving the people of Hawai‘i transparency in government. I am sure that should there have been the names of Nancy Crawford, Prosecuting Attorney Jay Kimura, Lincoln Ashida, John Dill, placed into the agenda, there’d have been more people here who would want to have known why. The obscuring of this is also a violation of the United States Code as accessory after the fact. So the actions of Mr. Dill, in conspiracy with Counsel Ashida and in conspiracy with the sitting board members at the time and Renee Schoen, sitting counsel at the time, constitute a conspiracy and actions, patterns, and history, in violation of the federal RICO Act. Therefore, the deprivation of my rights as equal and fair treatment, I am requesting that a formal hearing be held so that testimony may be taken, subpoenas may be issued, and interrogatories submitted. 5 MR. BALSIS: Any comments or questions from other members of the board? Arne, any questions? MR. HENRICKS: No comments. MR. BALSIS: Glen, do you have any questions? MR. HISASHIMA: Not right now. MR. BALSIS: May I ask, do we continue with this one and decide on this one, or shall we go through—I have no questions at this time. MS. SCHOEN: It’s really up to the chair how you want to handle it. Since Mr. Cole is sitting here, you may want to proceed through the other matters and take them all at once. It’s up to you. But again, you are here for initial review of a petition, so the Board needs to decide whether or not it should—needs additional information, or whether or not it will set the matter for some sort of hearing or whether or not it will dismiss the petition. MR. HENRICKS: I suggest we take them one at a time, because we won’t have a different board on each one, so we might as well just take them one at a time. MR. BALSIS: Okay. It seems the—from what you have just mentioned, the main contention is the obscuring of information from the agenda. MR. COLE: No, that is not. The main contention is the fact that a secret document of extortion was submitted to Chairman Dill, and he had communications with other members of the board outside of the Sunshine Law, and the communications were intentioned as an act of extortion to deprive me of my state and federal constitutional rights and freedoms, and therefore was not fair and equal treatment. The action is a criminal action under state and federal law in racketeering. A formal inquiry is what I am requesting so that testimony may be taken and these proceedings may be formalized as sworn and therefore the information proceeded forwarded to the United States authorities, the FBI, the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department, section Public Integrity. The actions of this board constitute a sworn action as an authority under the United States and therefore you are obligated under the United States Code to take action as required to bring forth information to the appropriate authorities criminal activities that become into your awareness. I’m sure that the judge will inform you that’s the case. MR. BALSIS: I’m taking a moment to re-review the petition. I have reviewed it already, but I want to double-check. Any comments—any further comments from the board? Any proposed action? MR. HENRICKS: Do you want to discuss it in session, or do you want to go forward? It’s your choice. 6 MR. BALSIS: If there’s any discussion, I’d like to just have discussion right here and be done with it. MR. HENRICKS: All right. I have nothing more to say then. MR. HISASHIMA: I have one question. You said that Mr. Dill had some information? MR. COLE: Yes. MR. HISASHIMA: What was that information? MR. COLE: Mr. Dill was sent a letter from Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida as to my fitness and mental capacities that he refused to disclose having knowledge of. Based upon that, he influenced the rest of the board outside of the public arena to sway the board, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, extortion, as to impugn upon me my nature, credibility, and repute, therefore making me a ridicule and the infamous, continuous definitions of the Webster’s Dictionary as counsel himself will attest to. The fact that they used the documents in secret, that I had no knowledge of and refused— refused to allow me to see those documents prior to the decisions of the board, where John—or Chairman Dill—had knowledge of and knew that those documents were dispute—made me look like ridicule, dispute, and hatred of the board, therefore depriving me of equal protection of the laws, depriving me of my Sixth Amendment right to face my accusers, and the fact that those documents were never placed in communications of the agenda as required, and as other documents similar to that have been placed in, and including the document on your current petition, 2010, you will notice that the documentations on Brenda Ford’s attorney were placed into record. I was given no documents of that. I was not told of the meeting. I was not told of the _________ of the meeting. I had to find it out myself. That is why I filed an OIP investigation request. The investigation was taken over by Kathy Takase, sister to Gerald Takase, Assistant Corporation Counsel, County of Hawai‘i, at the time, and therefore has been covered up. The OIP is identified in federal court records and with filings as to being accessory after the fact to these commissions also, as they are refusing to enforce the Sunshine Law as again, you see that my name is not—as a petitioner, the individuals, county officials are not identified, even though, according to your own rules and procedures, they have been previously put before the board and therefore are required to be placed into the agenda. The continual obscuring of these actions identifies and constitutes a deprivation of rights. We have a situation here that the Hawai‘i County Police Department also refused to allow me to file a complaint of extortion against Chair Dill and a complaint of extortion against Lincoln Ashida. Therefore, that is also a conspiracy and deprivation of rights to deny a citizen the ability to petition the government in redress of grievance. That’s one of the first five freedoms that you have in your constitution. Therefore, those actions in conspiracy identify clearly a not-being- treated-fairly aspect of the Hawai‘i County Ethics Code. MR. HISASHIMA. Thank you. MR. BALSIS: So you’re alleging you never got these documents. 7 MR. COLE: I never got those documents prior to the board issuing its opinions. In fact, I have the testimony right here, I believe someplace, of Chairman Dill himself denying me the ability to see those documents during the proceedings. After I requested them he said no, I had to make a formal request under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, 92(f), for those documents. And I didn’t make that request and I was provided the documents in the mail, without being requested, which constitutes a violation of the United States Code, Criminal Title, for mail fraud—or for blackmail, and using of the mail to send threatening letters. At the same time, there was a person who testified prior to the meeting by the name of Tim Rees. It is obviously by the testimony and the content of the testimony, and the consistency of testimony with Mr. Rees, the counsel, Lincoln Ashida, Mr. Dill, using the same terms and phrases I believe hypothetically was continuously used, constitutes and identifies that they had a meeting prior to and conspired to the vote. The fact that both the letter from the attorney, Lincoln Ashida, secretly to--directed to Chairman Dill—if you want I believe there’s some copies here someplace, and the letter of the attorney Ulric [sic: Udovic], representing Emily Naeole in secret to the board, the fact that I did not--was not notified of the meeting at all and the only way I notified was when I contacted the secretary of the board, Ms. Crosson there, and asked what is—was this meeting cancelled. And that was on a Friday or something, and I didn’t receive notice of the meeting until one day before the meeting. So that constitutes the fact that I have also identified a conspiracy of counsel when she was fully known, and she conspired with the individuals to pursue the matter and instructed the board that they were within their legal obligations. MR. BALSIS: I have some legal questions and I’d like to go into executive session for a short time. MR. COLE: If you wish, I do have the documents that I can give to you. MR. BALSIS: As a matter of fact, I brought them with me. MR. COLE: There we are. I have others, too. MS. SCHOEN: So there’s a motion to go into executive session to consult with the attorney— MR. BALSIS: --Yes— MS. SCHOEN: --regarding the board’s— MR. BALSIS: --I have moved— MS. SCHOEN: --privileges, duties, liabilities— MR. BALSIS: --Do we have a vote? The move is from the chair. MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. BALSIS: Okay, we’ll go into executive session. 8 MS. SCHOEN: You guys better get out. 10:32 a.m.: The board left regular session. Everyone not a part of the board left the room, including recused members Mr. Dill and Mr. Heaukulani. * * * * * 10:40 a.m. : The board returned to regular session, and all the parties reentered to the room. MR. HENRICKS: At this time, I’ll make a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the evidence that’s provided so far does not in any way support violations of Section 2-83, subsection (a), subsection (b), or 2-83(b). MR. BALSIS: Is there a second? MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. BALSIS: Call for a vote. MR. HENRICKS: Aye. MR. BALSIS: All in favor? MR. HENRICKS and MR. HISASHIMA (simultaneously): Aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. There’ll be three votes in favor of the dismissal. I’d like to move on to Petition No. 2011-02. b. Petition No. 2011-02: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics. MR. BALSIS: Do you have any comments on that particular one? MR. COLE: Yes, I do. Yes, I request the chair of the board to identify the petitioner and the county official identified and the circumstances of the petition. MR. BALSIS: Yes. The petitioner is Dan A. Cole. The specific provisions— MS. SCHOEN: --He wanted to know who the respondent is. MR. BALSIS: And the respondent is John Dill. And this is—you’re claiming a violation of Section 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Code of Ethics. MR. COLE: And could you identify the exact statement of those violations? 9 MR. BALSIS: The statement of fact is the Hawai‘i County Board of Ethics Chairman John Dill conspired with Corporation Counsel Lincoln S. T. Ashida to derive [sic] a person of their state and federal constitutional rights. MR. COLE: And the petition you just voted on, that was the petition against Lincoln S. T. Ashida, correct? MR. BALSIS: That is correct. MR. COLE: Okay. This petition is an identical conspiracy with identical facts. Again, Chairman Dill, having sworn an oath to defend and protect the constitutions, did use his official position in order for the furtherance of criminal activities involved in violation of the United States Code, Title 18, Section 1040, fraud in connection with benefits and emergency—major emergency disaster and Section 341, conspiracy to defraud the United States government. In 2000, the reason that the extortion was done and these petitions were filed against Lincoln Ashida and John Dill, is they were conspiring to prevent me from coming forth with knowledge, actual knowledge cognizable by a court of law, of a violation of the United States Code involved in defrauding the United States government of emergency benefits from the federally declared disaster of 2000, where the County of Hawai‘i did in fact authorize by their own documentation obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that they altered the Waiakea Stream, a federal waterway identified, which can only be altered by an act of congress, did not dispose of material as per contract, Job No. P-3535, as signed by Harry Kim. The alteration by their own admission of the streams was to provide flood protection resulting in the $80+ million of damage in 2008 from the flooding event. The alteration of the stream and the billing of the federal government for goods and services that are not required under the Simpson Act, in violation of Title 18, United States Code 1040, constitutes a conspiracy against the United States Code—the United States—to defraud it. The appearance in order to prevent me from coming forth, as will be noted in the original petitions, was to make known to a body of an authority under the United States, i.e., the Board of Ethics, as being sworn individuals, having the rules and procedures of this board as the effect of law, and having the ability to subpoena and require testimony, constitutes a civil authority under the United States. Therefore, your first action in the vote, you have admitted to violations, knowing and knowingly, of Section—Title 18, Section 3, United States Code, accessory after the fact. This agenda here is a conspiracy by Lincoln Ashida and others to prevent me from identifying the actual commission of a fraud in racketeering, which means there is no tolling statute—this is still going on—and the alteration of the Hilo streams which has caused the damage here. This is an act which is known in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 1512, tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. The acts of this body constitute a violation of the United States Code, Criminal Title 18, 1513, retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant. As I have previously noted, I have placed formal objection to these meetings being held in this procedure and have filed said with the Circuit Court next door. I see no reason that you would approve of formal hearings on John Dill if you didn’t approve on the formal hearings of Lincoln Ashida. And to allow a board of sworn individuals to use secret documentation against the people in deprivation of their state and federal constitutional rights exposes you to my actions in the U.S. District Court. Thank you very much. 10 MR. BALSIS: Is there any discussion from members of the board? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. HENRICKS: No comment. MR. BALSIS: Being that the situation is exactly the same, except in reverse—the first petition which was dismissed against Mr. Ashida, and this is the same except toward Mr. Dill—I would move that this also be dismissed for the exact same reasons, that we did not find a specific violation of 2-3(a)(3) [sic] and 2-83(b). MR. HENRICKS: I second the motion. MR. COLE: Point of order, may I query the board? MR. BALSIS: Yes—well, not really, because it’s the board who is— MR. COLE: --Well I’m asking to query the board. That’s what I’m asking of the chairman, if I may query the board. MR. BALSIS: I think at this time, the decision has already been—we’re in the process of doing our motion and vote here. MR. COLE: So I’m not allowed to know the reasons why you don’t find it, just that you do find it—sufficiency. Could you delineate and expound upon the reasons why you do not find it a violation of the County Code or the County Ethics Board? MR. BALSIS: Not at this time. No. MR. COLE: So therefore you’ll take a vote and not delineate the reasons for your vote. MR. BALSIS: We have delineated the reasons for our vote in the previous motion, for number 01. Do we have a vote for this? MR. HENRICKS: I second the motion, okay? Call for a vote. MR. BALSIS: And do we have a vote? MR. HENRICKS: Call for a vote. MR. BALSIS: Call for a vote? MR. HISASHIMA: Call for a vote. MR. HENRICKS: Aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. 11 MR. HISASHIMA: Aye. MR. BALSIS: We’ll move on now to Petition 2011-04. c. Petition No. 2011-04: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics. MR. BALSIS: Do you have any comments on this? This is the petition 2011-04. The specific provision on the Code of Ethics in question, Section 2-83(a)(3), all persons shall be treated in a courteous, fair, and impartial manner, and Section 2-83(b), no officer or employee shall use or attempt to use their position wrongly, to shorten that. The complete statement of facts: Corporation Counsel Lincoln S. T. Ashida conspired with Hawai‘i County Prosecuting Attorney Jay T. Kimura to deprive a person of their state and federal constitutional rights and freedoms. MR. COLE: Yes. The comment is made that the actions of Lincoln Ashida were in order to influence the County Prosecuting Attorney and the Police Department not to allow a complaint to be filed against him for criminal activity. He used his official position in writing of a letter to the Prosecuting Attorney, under his official position, charging me with a false penal offense, identifying that I had fabricated a United States government document—or a document that was filed in the United States federal court. Lincoln Ashida did so in the furtherance of a criminal activity, in violation of Criminal Title 18, United States Code, 1512, to threaten, intimidate, and influence a witness to prevent me from coming forth with the actual knowledge, cognizable by a court of the United States, of the fraud of Title 18, United States Code, Subsection 1040, deprivation of money and fraud with a major disaster; Title 18, United States Code, 241, conspiracy to defraud the United States government, payment for goods and services not received from the federal county, Job No. P-3535 of April, altering the Hilo streams and Waiakea Streams in violation of state and federal codes. The action that Lincoln Ashida, charging me with a penal offense of making a false statement to law enforcement officers, was derived from a letter sent to the United States government, FBI, special agent in charge, identifying those very acts and actions. Now I don’t know how it is that Lincoln Ashida had the authority or—whatever you want to call it—to take a letter sent to the FBI and use that information that I made a false statement to the FBI and filed a penal charge against me, directly with the Hawai‘i County Prosecuting Attorney, bypassing the Hawai‘i County Police Department. At the same time, I was being deprived of the ability to charge Lincoln Ashida with the very same charges. I was denied the ability to file a charge on Lincoln Ashida for extortion with the Hawai‘i County Police Department multiple times. I was denied the ability, as in federal records and records of this court—or of this Board of Ethics in my mass quantities of records here—and on record in the Hawai‘i County Council, that is a pattern and history of deprivation of rights continuously of the Hawai‘i County Police Department to allow any complaint to be filed against Lincoln Ashida or others. They are a privileged class. In so doing so, it is a conspiracy, in violation of the United States Code, 371, to instill upon a person, i.e., myself, that the authority of the County of Hawai‘i and other agents of the county and state do in fact constitute that I may be deprived, and other people may be deprived, of their state and federally guaranteed rights and freedoms to petition the government in redress. Such a instilling 12 in a person that they must act in the way by the continuous non-enforcement of the County Charter, the County Code, the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, and the federal government, as this board has just demonstrated in two previous votes, constitutes a deprivation of rights under the color of law, a conspiracy against rights for the purpose of sales and involuntary servitude, to instill upon a person that the authority that they are vested with, i.e., this board, the Police Department, or agents of the county and state, do in fact have the constitutional rights to deprive a person of property, due process of law, and equal protections of the law. By doing so, that is a violation of racketeering statutes and intimidating and threatening a witness. Therefore, it would not be fair treatment in order to deprive a person of their state and federal constitutional rights. If this board so determines that there is not sufficient grounds at least for a formal decision, or hearing, and where depositions can be taken, based on the information placed here, then the board is knowing—knowing and knowingly—stating its intent and purpose to deprive and deny citizens their constitutional state and federal rights under the color of law. Thank you very much. MR. BALSIS: Are there any questions from other board members? MR. HENRICKS: No comment. MR. HISASHIMA: No comment. MR. BALSIS: I only have one question. You said there was a specific document which was filed which—if I’m correct—that Ashida said was false. MR. COLE: Yes. That was basically a stipulation in the United States District Court, District of Hawai‘i, stipulating that neither the state nor the County of Hawai‘i, by and through their counsel, dispute the fact that the plaintiff in the case, me, was denied their state and federal constitutional rights. That was filed within the documents in the federal court. MR. BALSIS: And this was a written agreement— MR. COLE: --It’s filed—it’s a federal document. It’s filed—I actually have the document. It’s filed and sealed with the court. Lincoln Ashida stated in his letters, I believe that you have them, that I fabricated that document. Now had I fabricated a document in the federal court, I would have been arrested. I mean, that’s a serious offense. To him to state that, knowing and knowingly, that is a fraudulent and false act, for the purpose to influence a public official—that would be Jay Kimura. And Jay Kimura, knowing and knowingly, that that’s a violation of extortion as his 20 years plus of prosecutorial experience, constitutes a conspiracy and deprivation of rights and a violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes for extortion, 707-764. To be charged with a penal offense knowing it’s wrong, for one, to act as a public official in such a manner upon knowing it’s wrong, and taking action as a public official, it would have no bearing upon himself, but it would be used to discredit the individual whom it’s targeted. This was done for the purpose that nobody would take me seriously and I would be denied and discredited for bringing forth the evidence of the violations of the federal law that the County of Hawai‘i used in authorizing the modification of the Hilo streams for the 13 protection of privileged property owners, apparently to include Judge Hara and Kathy Takase and the Takase families, including Barbara Takase, that altered the Hilo streams, resulting in the $80 million of damages downstream ________. Now I’ll also point out that that information has also been placed into federal records. The Department of Homeland Security has an investigation open on it. The National Insurance Crime Bureau has placed a bulletin out on this. So any time that you try to sell property here, alter property here, they may be questioned and we have no disaster insurance and may in fact be denied these people. It is also pointed out that the altering of the streams is a violation of the 1899 Harbors and Rivers Appropriation Act and is also a violation of Title 42 of the United States Code, where only an act of congress can authorize such change. If you would like the exact documentation, I believe I placed it in the document I submitted to the court earlier. So the actions of Lincoln Ashida, in conspiracy with John Dill, in conspiracy with Jay Kimura, in conspiracy with the Hawai‘i County Police Department, in conspiracy with fellow deputy prosecuting attorney—or corporate counsel attorneys as present—constitutes an overall pattern and history of deprivation of rights in order to hinder the prosecution or discovery of violations of racketeering activity as defined by Title 18, United States Code, 1961. MR. BALSIS: I’m reviewing something in the letter here. Do we have any comments or motions from the remaining members? MR. HENRICKS: No comment. MR. HISASHIMA: No comment. MR. BALSIS: I’m reading the documents here, and from the documents presented, the whole situation of the stream is irrelevant to this particular matter. We’re looking specifically at the—did Lincoln Ashida make false statements here. And I don’t see— MR. COLE: --Yes, he did— MR. BALSIS: --I don’t see that with the documentation provided in this petition. MR. COLE: What about the documentation provided in the other petitions? And the other documentation provided? The fact also would be noted that this board has not placed into the agenda the communications that I have been placing and sending to this board. Why are those communications not included in the agenda as other communications that were placed from petitioners, or respondents, were placed into the board as was the communications of Brenda Ford’s attorney? The testimony that I’ve given in writing constitutes also a portion of your understanding, so all this testimony is on file. It is all pertinent to what is before you. MR. BALSIS: In the review that I have seen, I don’t see a need to move forward with this. What about the other board, does the-- MR. HENRICKS: Then make a motion. 14 MR. BALSIS: I move that we dismiss Petition 2011-04 in that we did not see a specific violation of Section 2-83(a)(3) and Section 2-83(b). MR. HENRICKS: I second it. MR. BALSIS: Call for a vote? MR. HENRICKS: All in favor? MR. BALSIS: Aye. MR. HISASHIMA: Aye. MR. HENRICKS: Aye. d. Petition No. 2011-05: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics. MR. BALSIS: On Petition 2011-05, the complaint here is specifically targeted to attorney Jay T. Kimura. I understand that from the statutes that the ethics committee—or statutes and also court law, if I’m correct—does not have jurisdiction over a former employee. MR. COLE: You are incorrect. MS. SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics, pursuant to Charter and Hawai‘i County Code, states that the Ethics Code is only applicable to officers and employees of the county. Mr. Kimura is no longer an employee of the county, so this board does not have jurisdiction over him. Additionally, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court has held that the State Ethics Commission had no jurisdiction over a former employee, and that’s found at—state it for the record—I don’t have the exact site, but it was Doe vs. State Ethics Commission. And so this board has no jurisdiction over Mr. Kimura as a former employee. MR. BALSIS: Based on that information, I would move that we dismiss— MR. HENRICKS: --Why don’t we have some discussion on that? MR. BALSIS: Okay. MR. COLE: Do I have discussion? MR. BALSIS: Yes, Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: Yes, first of all I’d like to point out that this petition was filed last year, apparently, and was heard in January. At that time the board had dismissed itself, but I filed the petition when he was in fact a public official, under this jurisdiction. The 15 actions of the council at that time constituted a violation when they disqualified themselves. Had that been done, then this matter should have been carried over until such time as the board had quorum and therefore Mr. Kimura would still be under the guise of the authority of the council. Also it is noted in the—I believe the petition—that the council, an employee has two years after leaving the county employ in which they’re subject to the actions of the county. In addition, this board has six years after said action in order to take actions. So as with counselor, I’m sure if I’m given some time, I can go through the Hawai‘i County rules, charters, rules and procedure of this body and state and federal law. But the effort was made in a timely manner. The actions, knowing and knowingly, of the board, convenient, whether true or not, constituted the decision they’re making now. In other words, you had the opportunity. It was filed properly, timely, concisely. The procedural matters in order to prevent this from coming forth must be constituted and identified under the United States Code, Criminal Title 18, Subsection 3, accessory after the fact. Knowing the— MR. HENRICKS: --Okay, my problem – I understand what the supreme court says in that matter. My problem is what they’re describing as a former employee. Now are they talking about they don’t have any—the board doesn’t have any jurisdiction over a former employee that’s no longer here, period, because of something he’s done after he’s gone? Or do they have jurisdiction over something he did while he was here and then is gone? MS. SCHOEN: Actually, that case—and I do have the cite, it’s John Doe vs. State Ethics Commission, 53 Hawai‘i 373, 494, P.2d 559 (1972) case. And actually that case is directly on point in that the ethics complaint was filed while the employees were employed as state employees. They subsequently terminated their employment, and then the supreme court said that the ethics board cannot pursue— MR. HENRICKS: --So they lose jurisdiction. MS. SCHOEN: They lose jurisdiction because they are no longer employed. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, that’s what my question was. Because I can see where it said because they’re a former employee they don’t have jurisdiction. But if they lose it, then okay. I have to _____ by that. MS. SCHOEN: Correct. And I think the court even enjoined the State Ethics Commission from pursuing prosecution. MR. HENRICKS: Okay. MR. COLE: Were those charges filed before the individuals left the service of the state? MS. SCHOEN: Yes. Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, that clarification is what I needed on that, because I wanted to know what—you know, how they lost jurisdiction. If they lost it, they lost it. So be it. And based on that, you could make a motion. I’ll make a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction at this time. Any second? 16 MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. BALSIS: Call for a vote. Say aye? MR. HENRICKS, MR. HISASHIMA, and MR. BALSIS (simultaneously): Aye. MR. HENRICKS: ____________. MR. COLE: I’m just reading it into the records for the federal prosecutors to take it from this. You can understand the concept. MR. BALSIS: At this point we’ll be moving on to Petition 2011-07. e. Petition No. 2011-07: Further initial review of petition alleging that an officer, “by offering solely to the Bank of Hawai‘i the purchase of Hawai‘i County General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes . . . provided unwarranted privileges, advantages, and treatment to Bank of Hawai‘i.” MR. BALSIS: And no one has recused themselves from this particular petition, and we call back the other members. MS. SCHOEN: Actually, my recollection was that—let me just state for the record. 2011-07, the petition was filed on February 3. The matter was placed on the board’s March 9 agenda for initial review. And as you recall, Mike Okumoto appeared and provided testimony for Nancy Crawford, and Mr. Cole appeared and provided testimony. At that particular meeting, I think Mr. Henricks came in late— MR. HENRICKS: --and didn’t hear the testimony— MS. SCHOEN: --after the testimony of Mr. Okumoto, and I think Mr. Cole as well. The initial hearing was continued to the next board meeting to ask—I think the board wanted to ask Ms. Crawford some questions. The matter then was placed on the May 11 agenda and at that time, Mr. Dill recused himself from the matter due to testimony he had provided the County Council. And that’s where we left it. So there were—Mr. Henricks, you weren’t there, Mr. Hisashima, and Mr. Heaukulani. I know that Mr. Hisashima has been provided with all of the documentation, information, petition, as well as the minutes, so that he can participate today. MR. HENRICKS: All right, before we proceed at this time, are you calling that - ? MS. SCHOEN: So Mr. Heakulani is chair. MR. HENRICKS: Are you calling that on now? MR. HEAUKULANI: Petition 2011-07. Who’s recused from this? 17 MR. HENRICKS: All right, if you’re calling the petition at this point, I’d like to recuse myself in fairness to Mr. Cole, because Ms. Crawford is a member of my—I’m a member of her bowling team, should I say, since it belongs to her department, and that we see each other very frequently and on an ongoing basis and will continue to see each other very frequently and on an ongoing basis in the years to come if she stays on the team. So therefore I would like to recuse myself for that purpose. MR. HEAUKULANI: Let the record reflect member Henricks has recused himself from 2011-07. Do we have a quorum? MS. SCHOEN: You do have a quorum with Mr. Hisashima, the chair, and Mr. Balsis. MR. HEAUKULANI: We shall proceed. MR. DILL: I— MS. SCHOEN: --You recused yourself. I’m sorry, that—vice chair. MR. DILL: Okay. MR. HEAUKULANI: We requested the presence of Nancy Crawford, as she is named in the petition. Is Nancy Crawford here, please? Good morning, Nancy. May I call you Nancy? MS. CRAWFORD: Good morning. Yes, please. MR. HEAUKULANI: Thank you for coming. Board members, are you familiar with all—do we need to review anything? MR. BALSIS: I’m very familiar with the situation. I had ______ discussions. MR. HEAUKULANI: Any questions? MR. BALSIS: I have no discussion. MR. HEAUKULANI: No questions? MR. BALSIS: No, I don’t. My questions were answered before. MR. HEAUKULANI: I have one. MS. CRAWFORD: Yes, sir. MR. HEAUKULANI: The decisions you made—was it based on the financial advisor? You folks hired a financial advisor, and he reviewed all of this—I believe it was six alternatives, to include Bank of Hawai‘i, to choose from. Mr. Okumoto said that the decisions were based on the advice of this financial advisor. Is that correct? Is that why—that’s what I wanted to ask you. 18 MS. CRAWFORD: Well, his input was certainly important. Our decision was based within the department, looking at all the information that was available, and that included the information gathered by the financial advisor, and also Mr. Okumoto’s input, and others of us in the department who sat and considered what the options were. And honestly, the option that we selected, which was working with Bank of Hawai‘i, was pretty clearly the only appropriate option. The other thing is that while we have moved forward in a relationship with them and have in fact taken advantage of their willingness to buy our short-term unrated papers, that option is available to any other financial institutions, that it is not an exclusive arrangement. It’s just that by the nature of the size of their bank and where they’re headed, that that’s—I mean, the investment side that they have in their bank—they have been willing to buy our unrated notes. And so that plays a part in the decision. MR. HEAUKULANI: Okay, thank you. The chair will entertain a motion. I’ve heard enough. MR. BALSIS: I’d like to move that we dismiss this petition at this time. MR. HEAUKULANI: I have a motion to dismiss the petition. Do I have a second? MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. HEAUKULANI: Are we ready—any discussion? Ready for the question? MR. BALSIS: Ready for the question. MR. HEAUKULANI: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. MR. HISASHIMA: Aye. MR. HEAUKULANI: Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. Turn the chair back over to Mr. Dill. MR. DILL: Thank you, vice chair. f. Petition No. 2010-10: Review draft order following the 5/11/11 formal hearing on petition alleging that Councilmember Brenda Ford did not treat Kimo Lee in a “courteous, fair and impartial manner” at his confirmation hearing. Ms. Schoen apologized for getting the draft to the board members this morning. Mr. Dill said he reviewed it and found it acceptable. He asked the others if they had any comments, questions, additions, or corrections to make. Mr. Heaukulani said he had none. 19 Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the formal opinion, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to go into executive session to review the confidential matters under agenda item 6. Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 11:15 a.m.: The board left regular session. 11:20 a.m.: The board returned to regular session for voting on the executive session matters. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the minutes of the June 8, 2011, meeting (Executive Session). Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2- 91.1(d), Hawaii County Code, by County board and commission members and designated County employees, where personal matter will be reviewed. Mr. Dill announced that the financial disclosure of Geraldine Giffin was being sent back for additional information and would be reviewed at the next meeting. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dill announced the board's next meeting: August 10, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. at the conference room of the Department of Liquor Control at 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, Hawaii. 8. ADJOURNMENT 11:22 a.m.: Mr. Dill adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (her signature) 20