Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-10 Board of Ethics MinutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:00 a.m. to 10:41 a.m. Department of Liquor Control – Conference room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawaii 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. Fujio, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m.: Mr. Dill called the meeting to order. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS (blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech) MR. DILL: We have Mr. Dan A. Cole. He’d like to speak on agenda items 3, 5a, 5b, 5c, and then 5b and 5c again, is that correct? MR. COLE: Yes, basically all of the petitions and the approval of the minutes. MR. DILL: Okay, Mr. Cole. MR. COLE: Good morning, board members. MR. HEAUKULANI: Good morning. MR. COLE: I assume you’ve all received a copy of the testimony I submitted yesterday. Okay. I’d like to first of all identify—in reference to the approval of the minutes, on page 17 of the draft minutes of the 8-4-11 meeting, on Petition No. 2011-07, Ms. Schoen states—excuse me, Mr. Balis [sic] states, “as no one has recused themselves from this particular petition, 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 the 3rd, the matter was placed on the board’s March 9 agenda for initial review, and as you recall, Mr. 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, a former state circuit court judge Henricks, states, “and didn’t hear the testimony.” I believe that as I was sitting there, Mr. Henricks—Judge Henricks did in fact come in late, but I think he arrived before the meeting was gaveled in and therefore did in fact hear the entire testimony. Going on, the information I have provided--as you know I have filed information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Assistant Section Chief of Public Corruption/Civil Rights, is special agent Patrick Bohrer, actions against this board for public corruption, money laundering, extortion, racketeering, bank and tax fraud, in the Hawai‘i County government, and the board’s action as accessory after the fact to those charges. In my testimony, you keep hearing me say that I’m bringing this information before this board in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, Subsection 4, misprision of felony. This board, being sworn members, and having the effect of law by statute of its rules and regulations, is by definition an authority under the United States, and therefore I am required by federal statutes in the United States Code to bring this information to you. I wish to read the exact laws here that you have been charged with and you will be facing here shortly. Misprision of felony, Section 3—4, of the United States Code, Title 18. Whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in the civil and military authority in the United States, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both. So therefore I am completing my obligation to bring this forth. What we have here, is I brought forth against you money laundering, racketeering. We have a financial institution manager here, Mr. Blausis [sic] and right now the County of Hawaii, the people of the County of Hawaii, are paying $66,000 to the Bank of Hawaii on a $10 million bond anticipation note that was illegally issued by the Mayor, Billy Kenoi, where that same $10 million was placed into the First Hawaiian Bank at one-tenth the interest, at no benefit whatsoever to the people of Hawai‘i, in violation of the County Charter. Mr. Balstis [sic] here and apparently the rest of the board see nothing wrong with that, even though he has been a manager of a financial institution for 17 months or 20 years here now, is renowned as an executive, and he finds nothing wrong with that type of action. So basically the accessory after the fact is that you people are using your position to prevent the apprehension and the enforcement of the laws. I read the law: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 3, accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment is an accessory after the fact. An accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half of the maximum term of imprisonment, fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal or both. You are accessory after the fact to bank fraud. I read the law: United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 63, Subsection 1344, bank fraud. Whoever knowingly executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain any of the monies, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other properties owned by or under the custody or control of a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretense, represents [sic] or promises shall be fined not more than $1 million or imprisoned not more than 30 years or both. You have before you two instances of bank fraud known as bond anticipation notes series A and bond anticipation notes series B. You also have a conspiracy to defraud the United States, as with those bonds, the county finance director issued and filed IRS Form 3038G. Therefore, the conspiracy is to defraud the United States Government of tax revenue. I read the law: United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 19, 371, conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States. If two or more persons conspire to either commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do not act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both. This board, in their actions, as their statements are recorded in the minutes of the testimony as filed, have committed egregious violations against my rights, and you have done this under the color of law. Therefore, you are in violation of the United States Code and of statutes. And I read the code: United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, Subsection 242, deprivation of rights under the color of law. Whoever, under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects a person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to deprive of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution and laws of the United States or to the different punishments, pains, or penalties on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his color, race, other than prescribed for the punishment of citizens shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both. What you have done here is you are depriving me of my rights based on the fact that I’m not local, or local enough. I understand—I have been here since the sixties—and I understand the strong bonds of social, cultural, tradition and norms. However, you have sworn an oath to uphold the constitutions of the state and federal governments. You cannot place the strength of customs, bonds, and tradition above that oath. Therefore, you have deprived me of my rights under the color of law. We continue now. Since there are more than two of you, we have a situation which is known as conspiracy against rights. I read the law: United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, 241, conspiracy against rights. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. All persons within the territories of the United States and properties controlled thereof have rights and freedoms, freedoms defined by the first amendment of the constitution. I have the right and freedom to petition the government in redress of grievance. By law I have an obligation to do this, which I am doing. You are preventing me from doing this under the color of law by your adherence to local customs and norms. We continue. Conspiracy against rights. This is the civil portion of which you are obligated. I read the law: United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subsection 1985, conspiracy against rights. Para three, depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any state or territory conspire, for the purpose of depriving either directly or indirectly any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or the equal privileges and immunities of the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any state or territory from giving or securing to all persons within that such state or territory the equal protection of the laws if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy the parties so injured or deprived may have action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation against any one or more of the conspirators. You are legally obligated to me in civil court in the United States district courts. We continue on this obligation. I read the law: United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subsection 1983, civil action for deprivation of rights. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, customs, or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress. As I mentioned to you before, I already have a JS-44 form filled out for the United States District Court, District of Hawaii. Your obligations, that you have sworn to uphold, and are hindering the prosecution of as both accessories after the fact and second degree hindering prosecution, are the violations of the Hawaii Revised Statutes for extortion. I read the statutes: Hawaii Revised Statutes, subsection 707-764, extortion. A person commits extortion if the person does any of the following: (1) obtains or exerts control over the property or services of another with the intent to deprive another of property or services by threatening by word or conduct. Property and services—services, my testimony before you. Property are identified as my state and federal constitutional rights and freedoms. I read section (i). As public officials sworn, you have violated and you have committed an act of extortion against me when you take or withhold action as a public servant, or cause a public servant to take or withhold action, such as when Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida sent letters of extortion in secret to Chairman Dill. Dill did not act on them, kept them secret, and then used that information to influence the rest of the board members into finding for no reason for the petition. We continue on. In addition to that, the statutes states for extortion, section (k). The actions of this board, even other than of a sworn official, to do any other act that would itself—in itself substantially benefit the defendant, but which is calculated to harm substantially some person with respect to their threatened person’s health, safety, or business, calling, career, financial conditions, or reputations, or personal relationships. By not allowing, or not providing me my state and federal constitutional guaranteed rights and services, you are impugning my ability as a citizen. 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. MR. COLE: Can we continue in this testimony afterwards, as I can continue my testimony? MR. DILL: Oh yeah, sorry to interrupt— MR. COLE: --Okay. I know the procedures I’m trying to make. Yeah, okay. MR. DILL: Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. MR. COLE: So the actions before you, I’m bringing before you all this information. It has nothing to do with me as a person individually. It has to do with the rights of all people. All people fairly be treated, equal process, equal protection of the laws. Now when the accident happens, the flooding event occurs, people are defrauded, why are their rights being denied them by your actions? Yes, Mr. Dill, did you have some questions? MR. DILL: Yes, just you were referencing a meeting that didn’t take place, it’s a Hawaii County Board of Ethics meeting on August 4, 2011. I’m not sure if that’s just a typo, or— MR. COLE: --I’m sure it’s a typo. This is on page what? MR. DILL: This is page—well, on the total testimony, 7. Page 7, which is page 2 of 3 of this email. MR. COLE: Okay. MR. DILL: The whole paragraph at the bottom, you might want to take a look at that. MR. COLE: The 8-4-11 board—that would be a typo, yes. MR. DILL: Okay. Did you— MR. COLE: --That would be the meeting of—“it is not possible to believe the legal, law enforcement, and financial institution experience the actions of members of the Hawai‘i County Board of Ethics were not knowingly—knowing and knowingly performed under the influence, control, and/or extortion of a local Japanese RICO enterprise in the performance of the board members’ official public and sworn actions and statements identified in the attached draft minutes of the 8/4/11 Hawaii County board meeting.” That I believe would be the minutes as identified by the—whatever the minutes are identified as—3/31 or the—yes, the 8/4/11. MR. DILL: Okay, any further testimony, sir? MR. COLE: Not at this time. I’ll be around for your— MR. HEAUKULANI: --I want to respond to him— MR. COLE: --further deprivation of my rights. Thank you. MR. DILL: Board members— MR. HEAUKULANI: I want to respond to you, Mr. Cole. How dare you come in here and claim we’re playing the race card. Don’t you ever claim a race—a decision based on race with me. MR. COLE: Oh, that’s a red herring. MR. HEAUKULANI: You better believe it. I was in the south in the sixties, before the civil rights act was passed. You don’t know what it is to be removed from a bus, a train, a restaurant, and denied to marry the girl you love because of the color of your skin. Don’t you dare come in here and play the race card. MR. COLE: Don’t you dare deprive me of my state and federal constitutional rights— MR. HEAUKULANI: --I’m not depriving you of anything. But don’t you claim that I’m making my decision— MR. COLE: --You are depriving me— MR. HEAUKULANI: --on race. MR. COLE: I’m not playing the race card. I am saying the adherence to the belief. MR. HEAUKULANI: You have that belief, fine, but don’t bring it up here with me, sir. MR. COLE: I have the right to bring it up in public testimony. MR. DILL: Okay, testimony’s done, okay testimony’s done. The board member is just responding to testimony. Sir, did you want to testify on any agenda items? UNKNOWN MAN: No, I just—actually I was just captivated by this, so I figured I’d come by and see what’s – MR. DILL: Okay, moving on. Approval of the regular session minutes from July 13, 2011. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2011 Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Review of Gifts Disclosure Statement received from Councilmember Peter Hoffmann. Mr. Dill explained that the disclosure had gotten lost in the shuffle of paperwork, which is why it was received late. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the disclosure, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2011-01: Review draft order dismissing the petition by Dan Cole, which alleged that Lincoln Ashida conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. As Mr. Dill was recused from Petition Nos. 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-04, and 2011-05, he relinquished the chair to Mr. Balsis. Mr. Heaukulani was also recused. Mr. Balsis asked whether there was any discussion or comments on the draft order. Mr. Hisashima said he had no comment. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the order as drafted, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. b. Petition No. 2011-02: Review draft order dismissing the petition by Dan Cole, which alleged that John Dill conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the order as drafted, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. c. Petition No. 2011-04: Review draft order dismissing the petition by Dan Cole, which alleged that Lincoln Ashida conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the order as drafted, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. d. Petition No. 2011-05: Review draft order dismissing the petition by Dan Cole, which alleged that Jay Kimura conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2-83(a)(3) and 2-83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the order as drafted, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. Mr. Balsis turned the meeting back over to Mr. Dill as chair. Ms. Schoen then clarified that Mr. Heaukulani needed to take over as chair for agenda item 5e, as Mr. Dill had earlier recused himself. Mr. Henricks was also recused from agenda item 5e. e. Petition No. 2011-07: Review draft order dismissing the petition by Dan Cole, which alleged that Nancy Crawford, “by offering solely to the Bank of Hawaii the purchase of Hawai‘i County General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes . . . provided unwarranted privileges, advantages, and treatment to Bank of Hawaii.” Mr. Heaukulani asked Mr. Balsis and Mr. Hisashima whether they had a chance to review the draft. They indicated they did, and had no discussion, comments, or amendments to make. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the order as drafted, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Heaukulani voted aye. Mr. Dill resumed as chair. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to go into executive session to review the confidential matters under agenda item 6. Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10:30 a.m.: The board left regular session. * * * * * 10:40 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 Executive Session minutes of July 13, 2011 (note: the agenda incorrectly listed the date of the minutes as June 8, 2011). Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Heaukulani 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 matters will be reviewed. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the three disclosures on the agenda. Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dill announced the board's next meeting as being scheduled for September 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. at the conference room of the Department of Liquor Control at 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dill adjourned the meeting at 10:41 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)