Though she failed to address specific charges Iseri gave a blanket denial of wrongdoing writing that "the first I heard of any purported illegal gas usage by me or anyone in my office was when Mr. Rawls filed his claim. I would be more than happy to state that there was no wrongdoing on my part or anyone else and hope that these allegations, made my a party I hardly knew, are taken to court and the truth is revealed."
In two emails Sunday (included in full below) Iseri denies also disputes accounts in local and Honolulu newspapers as well as Honolulu television news programs, various on-line publications and sources close to the situation that, as we wrote on Saturday, "(d)espite the efforts of former Prosecuting Attorney (PA) Shaylene Iseri- Carvalho (no relation) to indict the mayor- an effort that won her admonishment from the judge for not having enough votes on the grand jury but moving ahead as if she did- no one has been prosecuted in the case... yet."
She also addresses "the mens rea issue" although she apparently did not understand that the portion of the article dealing with the issue was quoted directly from Ron Rawls' "claim."
Other than the statement above and her discussion of what Rawls characterized as "the mens rea problem" itself, Iseri failed to address Rawls' actual charges- allegations that she and Pasion conspired to withhold information from the county council that was contained in the original investigatory report by an outside law firm and also sought to limit the investigation by covering-up similar alleged misdeeds on the part of others in county government... including Iseri herself.
We did err in saying that Iseri was on the council and voted to appoint Pasion as County Auditor. In fact Iseri had just left the council to become Prosecuting Attorney when the vote was taken. Unfortunately, due to a copy and past error, a sentence from a earlier draft wound up back in the article that was published and we have corrected the error on-line and noted it at the end of the piece. We apologize for any confusion.
Other than that we stand by everything that was published.
Here are Iseri's emails in full (all "sic"):
Your conspiracy claims are so bizarre. It's very apparent that you choose to publish delusions, instead of facts. It reminds me of another blogger who writes trash with no support. While I normally don't pay attention to your fiction stories, it was sent to me by Ken Taylor, who truly cares about the truth and people of Kauai, to read and address---
Let me address your points in order:
" Despite the efforts of former Prosecuting Attorney (PA) Shaylene Iseri- Carvalho (no relation) to indict the mayor- an effort that won her admonishment from the judge for not having enough votes on the grand jury but moving ahead as if she did- no one has been prosecuted in the case... yet."
First, I never pursued charges against the Mayor. Neither me nor anyone from my office ever presented any charges against the Mayor. Please provide your PROOF OF FACTS of this statement. I bet you never will because it doesn't exist. It's another figment of your thwarted imagination.
Second, there was never any admonishment by the judge for not having votes on the grand jury. Please provide your PROOF OF FACTS of this statement, especially a videotaped-recording of the proceeding wherein all judges's decisions are kept. I bet you never will because it doesn't exist. It's another figment of your thwarted imagination.
Every intelligent person would know that if the grand jury isn't presented a State of Hawaii v. Bernard Carvalho Jr. Case to consider, then most definitively they could not have the opportunity to vote to indict.
"...no surprise to anyone who has paid attention over the years- Pasion, who was appointed to the then-newly created Auditor's position with the votes of Rapozo and Iseri when she was on the council. Please provide your PROOF OF FACTS of this statement. I bet you never will because it doesn't exist. It's another figment of your thwarted imagination.
I never participated in the selection of Ernesto Pasion as the County Auditor. He was appointed unanimously by council members other than me--even by council members who you favor. (Chuckle). I knew Ernie Pasion as the Elections Clerk, then later as the Deputy County Clerk. I again, never selected him as the Deputy Clerk, nor had any input in that decision. I never had much communications with him when I was a council member because our work requests all went through the County Clerk and it was reassigned to other staff members. I've never been to his house, I don't even know where he lives, he's never given me any campaign contribution, we don't even go to the same church nor do we now, nor ever did, socialize. I rarely ever saw him then, and I rarely see him now.
" The results of the McCorriston-led investigations were memorialized in two reports; one regarding the mayor's use of fuel and the other regarding a parks employee's alleged misappropriation of fuel. At the outset, I note that McCorriston's May 1, 2012 report regarding the mayor's use of fuel concludes that the mayor may or may not have possessed the mens rea required to support a criminal case against him. The McCorriston report also recommended referral to law enforcement (in this case, the state's Attorney General) if the County Council decided to seek further investigation into the lack of mens rea problem."
The state of mind with which a person commits an act such as ["intentionally"] ["knowingly"] ["recklessly"] may be proved by circumstantial evidence. While witnesses may see and hear, and thus be able to give direct evidence of what a person does or fails to do, there can be no eye-witness account of the state of mind with which the acts are done or omitted. But what a person does or fails to do may or may not indicate the state of mind with which he/she does or refrains from doing an act.
“While a defendant’s state of mind can rarely be proved by direct evidence, ‘the mind of an alleged offender may be read from his or her acts or conduct and the inferences fairly drawn from all of the circumstances.’” State v. Pudiquet, 82 Hawai#i 419, 425, 922 P.2d 1032, 1038 (App. 1996); State v. Leung, 79 Hawai#i 538, 544, 904 P.2d 552, 558 (App. 1995). "[S]ince intent can rarely be proved by direct evidence, proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the act is sufficient to establish the requisite intent." State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430, 642 P.2d 534, 537 (1982); see also State v. Rushing, 62 Haw. 102, 612 P.2d 103 (1980); State v. Hernandez, 61 Haw 475, 605 P.2d 75 (1980); State v. Yabusaki, 58 Haw. 404, 570 P.2d 844 (1977).