DON'T IT ALWAYS SEEM TO GO: Politics just may be the one place where one can become overwhelmed with crushing ambivalence.
The rule is that elective office- especially legislative- is so corrupt by nature that even the truly enlightened and dedicated novice is
swallowed whole and spit back out a crook. But every once in a while that rare individual with the stomach for the stench can swim the turd gauntlet and emerge smelling like lavender and lilacs.
And when that rare individual attains enough fragrance to attract attention they are often tempted to crawl out of the cesspool and look around for a more rarefied air.
So it is that in losing Representative Mina Morita to the Pubic Utilities Commission and Senator Gary Hooser to the Office of Environmental Control, while we mourn for the loss we are excited for the potential that their proven strengths and skills may be utilized to assure a sustainable future in energy and the environment respectively.
But we really in a tizzy over the possibility of losing, not a politician but, an individual that is so unique on Kaua`i that he may be, for all intents and purposes, irreplaceable.
In case you hadn't heard Attorney Daniel Hempey has made the list for judicial nominees to the District Family Court of the Fifth Circuit.
For those not familiar with Hempey's work and why it's unique you've got to take a look at the rest of the law community on Kaua`i.
Kaua`i is and always has been awash in land use attorneys, representing developers great and small to navigate the labyrinth. If you ever expect to get one of those lucrative cases you'd better not be taking any cases defending against them.
In addition to Hempey's work as a criminal defense attorney par excellance- another thing that doesn't earn you very high marks among Kaua`i based members of the bar- Hempey has dared to take cases representing those who defend the `aina from potential abuse by those who come here with intent to despoil.
On one hand Hempey's fearless pro bono work with Kanaka Maoli sovereignty movement has been magnificent and might just make him irreplaceable. But on the other, the need for someone of Hempey's fearless temperament on the bench is tremendous, especially in light of the plethora of government and prosecutorial judicial appointments that we usually see in Hawai`i and Kaua`i.
So it's with even greater level of profound ambivalence that we ask you to send comments on Hempey's qualifications and character to Hawaii Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald.
Submittals must be postmarked, e-mailed, faxed or hand-delivered by March 18.
Via Mail: Mark Recktenwald; chief justice, Hawaii Supreme Court; 417 S. King St., Honolulu, HI 96813
Via E-mail: chiefjustice@courts.state.hi.us
Via Fax: 539-4703
As with Morita and Hooser while we're apprehensive about the possible "loss" of Hempey in his current arena we have to think that they know where they can best serve the community. All three have earned enough of our respect and trust that we're sure that while we're of two minds they can make the best determination of where to use theirs.
Showing posts with label Daniel Hempey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Hempey. Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Thursday, October 7, 2010
ON AND ON, ON AND ON, ON AND ON
ON AND ON, ON AND ON, ON AND ON: On average we field at least half a dozen or more calls and emails a week from readers that are either flummoxed or flabbergasted at the total lack of ability and professionalism at the local newspaper these days-perhaps the worst it’s ever been and that’s says volumes in and of itself.
The latest sh*tstorm is over an October 3rd article finally covering the Kristan C. Hirakawa-Suniga sexual harassment lawsuit against the county, a matter we started covering in December of 2009- with more revelations in June, culminating in a August report on the $450,000 settlement.
You might think that the calls and letters we got on this matter were about the many other outstanding EEOC complaints and sexual harassment suits that went unnamed in the article which instead had an interview with our half-assed County Attorney Al Castillo who claimed the age of harassment of women is in the past despite current outstanding suits that were exacerbated and even initiated by the actions and inaction of his office after he was appointed.
One of those EEOC complaints was filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson over her firing by Castillo himself when he came into office although the type of discrimination has not been revealed... and neither has any settlement.
There’s also the outstanding case of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin which may or may not have been settled during a recent executive session as we reported in June.
In all of these cases, rather than settling when he came into office Castillo requested money from the county council to fight these suits.
So much for his attempt to turn around the way the county treats sexual harassment, as the article contends.
But no they weren’t about that. All of the callers and emailers wanted to talk about the impression given in the article that Hirakawa’s harasser was her new husband Sonny Suniga whom she recently married and with whom she recently had a child.
Nothing of course could be farther from the truth. The name of her harasser- which was conveniently (and typically) left out of the article is Dexter Shimatsu as we also reported in the original article on Hirakawa-Suniga.
But after describing the suit and settlement- all on the basis of an interview with Suniga’s attorney Daniel Hempey and obviously without reading the suit or it’s second filing, the two- count ‘em, two- writers of the story (yes it took two people to write this mess) Paul Curtis and Leo Azambuja first described some of the story.
Hirakawa was paid $100,000 in county funds in 2003 in a worker’s-compensation settlement while she was a dispatcher, a civilian position within the Kaua`i Police Department.
She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2002 that accused former KPD Lt. Alvin Seto of coercing her into filing a harassment complaint against fellow dispatcher Nelson Gabriel.
Gabriel is now a uniformed KPD officer.
Gabriel was charged with six counts of harassment, one count of harassment by stalking, in 2001 after he was reassigned to dispatch after being accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He was found not guilty of the sex-assault charges.
Part of the settlement in the dispatch case mandated county officials to identify other county jobs Hirakawa might be qualified to fill, and she was hired at the Department of Liquor Control, said Hempey.
But then, out of the blue and appropriate of nothing but seemingly explanatory of something, they wrote:
Hirakawa in November 2009 was granted a temporary restraining order against Sonny Suniga, for a period of six months wherein Suniga also agreed to attend a domestic-violence workshop, state court records show.
Less than a month later, Hirakawa asked for the TRO to be dissolved, and Fifth Circuit Family Court Judge Calvin Murashige granted that request.
On Sept. 8, Mr. and Mrs. Sonny Suniga greeted their first child, a girl, Tianny Brandi Namiko Suniga, weighing 7 pounds, 1.7 ounces, at Kaua`i Veterans Memorial Hospital in Waimea.
Of course people thought Suniga was the harasser- why else would they mention it?
Comments on the article in the on-line version certainly thought so.
Here’s some examples:
truthislaw said on: October 3, 2010, 7:41 am
Am reading this right?
Hirakawa makes claims against Suniga for harassment, sues the county, wins the suit, then marries her harasser and has a baby?
John_Brown said on: October 3, 2010, 10:39 am
Woah... The first settlement appeared to be totally legit but the second one where she ended up marrying the guy and having his kid? That's harassment? That appears to be COURTSHIP. It appears she realized there was money to be made in this harassment thing... And why settle for $100K? Get a better lawyer and go for the big money! And at some point they were unwanted advances and that all changed once the litigation began? Something seems very fishy about this entire situation and what's sad is that the county still paid. Lastly, 'waiting' at home for the settlements must have been tough duty. I guess with all that free time... BABY from the 'abuser'. LOL
payback said on: October 3, 2010, 3:39 pm
As a taxpayer I would not object to spending the money to prosecute thus Bonnie and Clyde to deter others from this scheme. When the “advances” were no longer “unwanted” (assuming they ever were) a stop should be put on her check.
As a rule in journalism and libel law if you are going to bring up a fact about the subject of an article- especially someone who is not a public figure- it’s supposed to be “germane” to the article and. of course, the context that makes it germane should be made apparent.
In addition to the obvious journalistic reason of not showing bias or even malice, the “rule” is made for exactly this circumstance- so that people do not relate the unrelated fact to what is being reported and get the wrong impression.
Doing this kind of thing can lead to a libel suit. Hirakawa, despite the lawsuit, is not a public figure so there is no “absence of malice” standard, only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to show she was harmed by the publication of false material even if it was unintentional.
So far, despite the comments and outrage in the community cause by their false and unethical reporting, there has been no correction forthcoming from the newspaper.
It’s about time someone sued this rag. Maybe then they would wake up to all the angst and wild false rumors that they create across the island and about which we field these calls and letter.
If we were the Suniga’s we’d be calling Hempey right about now.
The latest sh*tstorm is over an October 3rd article finally covering the Kristan C. Hirakawa-Suniga sexual harassment lawsuit against the county, a matter we started covering in December of 2009- with more revelations in June, culminating in a August report on the $450,000 settlement.
You might think that the calls and letters we got on this matter were about the many other outstanding EEOC complaints and sexual harassment suits that went unnamed in the article which instead had an interview with our half-assed County Attorney Al Castillo who claimed the age of harassment of women is in the past despite current outstanding suits that were exacerbated and even initiated by the actions and inaction of his office after he was appointed.
One of those EEOC complaints was filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson over her firing by Castillo himself when he came into office although the type of discrimination has not been revealed... and neither has any settlement.
There’s also the outstanding case of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin which may or may not have been settled during a recent executive session as we reported in June.
In all of these cases, rather than settling when he came into office Castillo requested money from the county council to fight these suits.
So much for his attempt to turn around the way the county treats sexual harassment, as the article contends.
But no they weren’t about that. All of the callers and emailers wanted to talk about the impression given in the article that Hirakawa’s harasser was her new husband Sonny Suniga whom she recently married and with whom she recently had a child.
Nothing of course could be farther from the truth. The name of her harasser- which was conveniently (and typically) left out of the article is Dexter Shimatsu as we also reported in the original article on Hirakawa-Suniga.
But after describing the suit and settlement- all on the basis of an interview with Suniga’s attorney Daniel Hempey and obviously without reading the suit or it’s second filing, the two- count ‘em, two- writers of the story (yes it took two people to write this mess) Paul Curtis and Leo Azambuja first described some of the story.
Hirakawa was paid $100,000 in county funds in 2003 in a worker’s-compensation settlement while she was a dispatcher, a civilian position within the Kaua`i Police Department.
She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2002 that accused former KPD Lt. Alvin Seto of coercing her into filing a harassment complaint against fellow dispatcher Nelson Gabriel.
Gabriel is now a uniformed KPD officer.
Gabriel was charged with six counts of harassment, one count of harassment by stalking, in 2001 after he was reassigned to dispatch after being accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He was found not guilty of the sex-assault charges.
Part of the settlement in the dispatch case mandated county officials to identify other county jobs Hirakawa might be qualified to fill, and she was hired at the Department of Liquor Control, said Hempey.
But then, out of the blue and appropriate of nothing but seemingly explanatory of something, they wrote:
Hirakawa in November 2009 was granted a temporary restraining order against Sonny Suniga, for a period of six months wherein Suniga also agreed to attend a domestic-violence workshop, state court records show.
Less than a month later, Hirakawa asked for the TRO to be dissolved, and Fifth Circuit Family Court Judge Calvin Murashige granted that request.
On Sept. 8, Mr. and Mrs. Sonny Suniga greeted their first child, a girl, Tianny Brandi Namiko Suniga, weighing 7 pounds, 1.7 ounces, at Kaua`i Veterans Memorial Hospital in Waimea.
Of course people thought Suniga was the harasser- why else would they mention it?
Comments on the article in the on-line version certainly thought so.
Here’s some examples:
truthislaw said on: October 3, 2010, 7:41 am
Am reading this right?
Hirakawa makes claims against Suniga for harassment, sues the county, wins the suit, then marries her harasser and has a baby?
John_Brown said on: October 3, 2010, 10:39 am
Woah... The first settlement appeared to be totally legit but the second one where she ended up marrying the guy and having his kid? That's harassment? That appears to be COURTSHIP. It appears she realized there was money to be made in this harassment thing... And why settle for $100K? Get a better lawyer and go for the big money! And at some point they were unwanted advances and that all changed once the litigation began? Something seems very fishy about this entire situation and what's sad is that the county still paid. Lastly, 'waiting' at home for the settlements must have been tough duty. I guess with all that free time... BABY from the 'abuser'. LOL
payback said on: October 3, 2010, 3:39 pm
As a taxpayer I would not object to spending the money to prosecute thus Bonnie and Clyde to deter others from this scheme. When the “advances” were no longer “unwanted” (assuming they ever were) a stop should be put on her check.
As a rule in journalism and libel law if you are going to bring up a fact about the subject of an article- especially someone who is not a public figure- it’s supposed to be “germane” to the article and. of course, the context that makes it germane should be made apparent.
In addition to the obvious journalistic reason of not showing bias or even malice, the “rule” is made for exactly this circumstance- so that people do not relate the unrelated fact to what is being reported and get the wrong impression.
Doing this kind of thing can lead to a libel suit. Hirakawa, despite the lawsuit, is not a public figure so there is no “absence of malice” standard, only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to show she was harmed by the publication of false material even if it was unintentional.
So far, despite the comments and outrage in the community cause by their false and unethical reporting, there has been no correction forthcoming from the newspaper.
It’s about time someone sued this rag. Maybe then they would wake up to all the angst and wild false rumors that they create across the island and about which we field these calls and letter.
If we were the Suniga’s we’d be calling Hempey right about now.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
GET YOUR HEAD IN THE GAME
GET YOUR HEAD IN THE GAME: Kaua`i is no place for environmental and kanaka maoli activists who find themselves with no other option but to sue to stop ill-advised projects that find officials all to eager to flout laws and rules in order to accommodate their degradation.
The exceptions that prove the rule- that local attorneys will never take pro bono cases because they are too busy getting rich representing various and sundry land rapists- have been the firm of Dan Hempey and Greg Meyers and, although they operate out of Honolulu, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC) headed by Alan Murakami and, of late, former Sierra Club attorney David Kimo Frankel.
It’s no secret they’re up to their `okole in potential suits so when they take one in the public interest it isn’t in order to represent the interests of a person who is acting as plaintiff but for the wider community that has a stake in the matter and has invested their interests in the plaintiff.
But for every Nani Rogers- whose financial plight as a result of a suit brought on her behalf by Murakami, Frankel and the NHLC, which she detailed yesterday in this space- there’s apparently a Waldeen K. Palmeira who, if the report in the local paper today is accurate, has fired the same team because she had not “received adequate representation” in the matter of the `iwi kupuna (ancestral bones) along the Wailua Beach road widening project.
Though she wouldn’t comment further and we have no knowledge of why she did it we can confidently ask “what in the f—kin’ hell are you thinkin’ lady?”.
No matter what the reason, to think that this is her case and not the community’s takes a lot of gall. The fact that they took the case had little or nothing to do with her and everything to do with making sure the project went through the necessary steps in following the environmental and cultural protection laws of the state and county.
We can only guess at why she’s done this- most likely she had no freakin’ idea how to go about approaching the legal system to stop the project from avoiding the necessary steps, like the EA/EIS (environmental assessment/environmental impact statement) process which only requires that impacts are “mitigated” while she wanted the project stopped permanently with some kind of magical injunction.
It’s not like we haven’t seen that happen before. But if you’re going to play on the king’s field you kick the king’s ball and play by the king’s rules. If you want to go the “sovereign” route in court, fine but do it with consistency up and down the line and accept the consequences. Don’t get everyone dressed up in the king’s uniforms, hire the referees and then try to take the ball and go home... because it ain’t your ball.
The point is that when you act as plaintiff and use our precious resources- in this case two of the best in the “business” of protecting environmental and cultural justice- it’s ain’t about you. Get over yourself Waldeen.
The exceptions that prove the rule- that local attorneys will never take pro bono cases because they are too busy getting rich representing various and sundry land rapists- have been the firm of Dan Hempey and Greg Meyers and, although they operate out of Honolulu, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC) headed by Alan Murakami and, of late, former Sierra Club attorney David Kimo Frankel.
It’s no secret they’re up to their `okole in potential suits so when they take one in the public interest it isn’t in order to represent the interests of a person who is acting as plaintiff but for the wider community that has a stake in the matter and has invested their interests in the plaintiff.
But for every Nani Rogers- whose financial plight as a result of a suit brought on her behalf by Murakami, Frankel and the NHLC, which she detailed yesterday in this space- there’s apparently a Waldeen K. Palmeira who, if the report in the local paper today is accurate, has fired the same team because she had not “received adequate representation” in the matter of the `iwi kupuna (ancestral bones) along the Wailua Beach road widening project.
Though she wouldn’t comment further and we have no knowledge of why she did it we can confidently ask “what in the f—kin’ hell are you thinkin’ lady?”.
No matter what the reason, to think that this is her case and not the community’s takes a lot of gall. The fact that they took the case had little or nothing to do with her and everything to do with making sure the project went through the necessary steps in following the environmental and cultural protection laws of the state and county.
We can only guess at why she’s done this- most likely she had no freakin’ idea how to go about approaching the legal system to stop the project from avoiding the necessary steps, like the EA/EIS (environmental assessment/environmental impact statement) process which only requires that impacts are “mitigated” while she wanted the project stopped permanently with some kind of magical injunction.
It’s not like we haven’t seen that happen before. But if you’re going to play on the king’s field you kick the king’s ball and play by the king’s rules. If you want to go the “sovereign” route in court, fine but do it with consistency up and down the line and accept the consequences. Don’t get everyone dressed up in the king’s uniforms, hire the referees and then try to take the ball and go home... because it ain’t your ball.
The point is that when you act as plaintiff and use our precious resources- in this case two of the best in the “business” of protecting environmental and cultural justice- it’s ain’t about you. Get over yourself Waldeen.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
GETTING PERSONAL:
GETTING PERSONAL: Looking for justice in the 5th Circuit Court on Kaua`i has long been an exercise in futility. But now apparently it’s gone beyond perpetuating attacks on the community’s right to plan their future and may result in a personal financial slap down of one of the most committed kanaka maoli activists on the island.
As we’ve mentioned a few times lately, with the appointment of two judges with close ties to the county, it’s gotten worse for those that are frustrated with some of the blatant flouting of laws and administrative rules by both administrative and legislative officials.
But although former deputy county attorney, Judge Kathleen Watenabe has yet to rule against the county when it comes to process when it comes to protecting rich land owners’ “right to despoil” it’s been quite the opposite.
One of those cases was the Thousand Friends suit to require an EIS for two east side developments and enforce a planning commission requirements for the project.
We won’t rehash the specifics but suffice to say that planning department incompetence was at issue and their seeming inability to properly include a “finding of fact” by the commission– and to understand that was all that was needed- was key according to attorney Dan Hempey.
Nani Rogers was one of the plaintiffs in the suit who agreed to lend her name to the filing in order to protect the `iwi kupuna - the bones of her ancestors- and now, even though the case is going to be appealed she’s being hit with a court-cost bill of $38,919.04 which includes $10,000 to be paid to the county of Kaua`i.
One of the attorneys, Lyle Hosaka, of Coconut Plantations, has gone so far as to ask Watenabe to allow him to cross examine Rodgers in court as to her assets.
Rather than try to characterize it further we’ll post an email from Nani which we received this morning followed by a letter from her attorney David Frankel detailing what he calls the “egregious” request by Hosaka.
-----
Re: Help! this is an attack on a Kupuna who protects na iwi kupuna
Aloha kakou,The story of what these insidious lawyers are trying to do to me should be hitting all the newspapers and tv stations! Can you folks help?
This case is not about Naue na iwi kupuna, Naue court date is in October, 2010.
This is about other na iwi kupuna that needed protection against the construction of two huge resort developments in Waipouli, Ahupua`a o North Olohena.
Coconut Beach Development, LLC applied for permits to build on approximately 20 acres of land (TMK: 4-3-02:15 and 16 a.k.a. Lot 3 and 4.) Plans for the parcel include the development of six hotel units and 334 condominium/ timeshare units to be constructed in three phases.
Coconut Plantation Holdings, LLC applied for permits to build on 12 acres of land in Waipouli Ahupua`a, Kawaihau District, Kauai, Hawaii (TMK: 4-3-007:027) Plans for the parcel include the development of a condominium project on approximately 9.73 acres of Lot 6 with 192 condominium/ timeshare units and 6 hotel units.
Also included in the case was the Kauai Planning Dept. for granting these permits without an EA. My part was to protect the cultural resources at Waipouli as described in Thousand Friends of Kauai& Puanani Rogers v. Dept. of Planning, County of Kauai et al., Civil No. 07-1-0007.
We went to court to petition for an EA for these two properties. Plaintiffs named were Kauai Thousand Friends(KTF) and by their invitation to join them, Puanani Rogers. I applied and requested legal services to Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.(NHLC) in January 2007,. My request was granted and my assigned lawyer was David Kimo Frankel of Honolulu who would work jointly with KTF lawyers Greg Meyers and Dan Hempy of Lihue. My NHLC legal services contract states: "NHLC will assess the following: The merits of the claim that the development needs an environmental assessment and whether litigation can protect traditional and customary practices."
Court filings and hearing began from January 2007 THROUGH Oct 9, 2009. Kauai Thousand Friends and Puanani Rogers were denied their claims, so on October 9, COCONUT PLANTATION filed their motions for Costs in the amount of $7,265.34.
On December 3, 2009, the Court entered its Order Granting the COUNTY OF KAUAI Defendants Motion for Bill of costs in the amount of $10,187.04.
On December 17, 2009, the court entered its Order Granting in Part and denying in part intervenor COCONUT BEACH filing of costs against Plaintiffs in the amount of $21,466.66 with interest at the statutory rate of ten percent per annum.
I added it all up and the total came to $38,919.04.
KTF and NHLC will be filing an appeal to stop the construction of the two resorts.
You have also seen the e-mail from the attorney for Coconut Plantation, Lyle Hosaka, threatening to get a court order to allow him to cross examine me in court regarding my assets. (see his message below) No hearing date has been set for that, nor do I know if the judge received or granted the bad, nasty lawyers' request to do their nasty deeds...
I need help with documents that I may present to the court that will protect me if and when I refuse to enter their courtroom. I was told by some people to use Convention IV per Prof. Francis Boyle. I need to research that. I don't want to step into that courtroom, as a Kanaka maoli and through past experience I know that I was discriminated against because I am Kanaka maoli, my political activism and the Naue na iwi case; and because the court refuses to acknowledge all traditional and customary rights of cultural claims, practices and beliefs.
KTF is an organization that has no money so they are not feeling any threat, but KTF and NHLC will be appealing the judgment to permit the building of the resorts. KTF members are very concerned about my situation and are offering to support and help me as much as they can.
Mahalo a nui for taking the time to read this long message.
I am praying that the judgment for costs may go away if the appeal is granted. I am praying for kokua and support, not necessarily for money, but for prayers and solutions.
Me ke aloha ana`ole,
Kupuna Nani Rogers
-------
Forwarded text:
From: David Kimo Frankel
Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 1:43:31 PMSubject: it gets worse
Lyle Hosaka, of Coconut Plantations, is doing something even more egregious.
He has requested information from far more banks than Joe Stewart did, including several federal credit unions:
Garden Island, Kauai Community, Kauai Government Employees, Kauai Teachers , Kaumakani, Kekaha, Koloa and McBryde.
He has also asked the Court for an order allowing him to cross examine you in court and to bring:
1. Any and all pay stubs you received in the past 6 months.
2. Any and all account statements that you received in the past 6 months
3. Any and all check registers.
4. Any and all documents evidencing a debt owed to you.
5. Any and all documents evidencing ownership of and/or an interest in real property
6. A list of all 3rd parties that owe money and/or property to you
(The preceding post has been edited from its original content)
As we’ve mentioned a few times lately, with the appointment of two judges with close ties to the county, it’s gotten worse for those that are frustrated with some of the blatant flouting of laws and administrative rules by both administrative and legislative officials.
But although former deputy county attorney, Judge Kathleen Watenabe has yet to rule against the county when it comes to process when it comes to protecting rich land owners’ “right to despoil” it’s been quite the opposite.
One of those cases was the Thousand Friends suit to require an EIS for two east side developments and enforce a planning commission requirements for the project.
We won’t rehash the specifics but suffice to say that planning department incompetence was at issue and their seeming inability to properly include a “finding of fact” by the commission– and to understand that was all that was needed- was key according to attorney Dan Hempey.
Nani Rogers was one of the plaintiffs in the suit who agreed to lend her name to the filing in order to protect the `iwi kupuna - the bones of her ancestors- and now, even though the case is going to be appealed she’s being hit with a court-cost bill of $38,919.04 which includes $10,000 to be paid to the county of Kaua`i.
One of the attorneys, Lyle Hosaka, of Coconut Plantations, has gone so far as to ask Watenabe to allow him to cross examine Rodgers in court as to her assets.
Rather than try to characterize it further we’ll post an email from Nani which we received this morning followed by a letter from her attorney David Frankel detailing what he calls the “egregious” request by Hosaka.
-----
Re: Help! this is an attack on a Kupuna who protects na iwi kupuna
Aloha kakou,The story of what these insidious lawyers are trying to do to me should be hitting all the newspapers and tv stations! Can you folks help?
This case is not about Naue na iwi kupuna, Naue court date is in October, 2010.
This is about other na iwi kupuna that needed protection against the construction of two huge resort developments in Waipouli, Ahupua`a o North Olohena.
Coconut Beach Development, LLC applied for permits to build on approximately 20 acres of land (TMK: 4-3-02:15 and 16 a.k.a. Lot 3 and 4.) Plans for the parcel include the development of six hotel units and 334 condominium/ timeshare units to be constructed in three phases.
Coconut Plantation Holdings, LLC applied for permits to build on 12 acres of land in Waipouli Ahupua`a, Kawaihau District, Kauai, Hawaii (TMK: 4-3-007:027) Plans for the parcel include the development of a condominium project on approximately 9.73 acres of Lot 6 with 192 condominium/ timeshare units and 6 hotel units.
Also included in the case was the Kauai Planning Dept. for granting these permits without an EA. My part was to protect the cultural resources at Waipouli as described in Thousand Friends of Kauai& Puanani Rogers v. Dept. of Planning, County of Kauai et al., Civil No. 07-1-0007.
We went to court to petition for an EA for these two properties. Plaintiffs named were Kauai Thousand Friends(KTF) and by their invitation to join them, Puanani Rogers. I applied and requested legal services to Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.(NHLC) in January 2007,. My request was granted and my assigned lawyer was David Kimo Frankel of Honolulu who would work jointly with KTF lawyers Greg Meyers and Dan Hempy of Lihue. My NHLC legal services contract states: "NHLC will assess the following: The merits of the claim that the development needs an environmental assessment and whether litigation can protect traditional and customary practices."
Court filings and hearing began from January 2007 THROUGH Oct 9, 2009. Kauai Thousand Friends and Puanani Rogers were denied their claims, so on October 9, COCONUT PLANTATION filed their motions for Costs in the amount of $7,265.34.
On December 3, 2009, the Court entered its Order Granting the COUNTY OF KAUAI Defendants Motion for Bill of costs in the amount of $10,187.04.
On December 17, 2009, the court entered its Order Granting in Part and denying in part intervenor COCONUT BEACH filing of costs against Plaintiffs in the amount of $21,466.66 with interest at the statutory rate of ten percent per annum.
I added it all up and the total came to $38,919.04.
KTF and NHLC will be filing an appeal to stop the construction of the two resorts.
You have also seen the e-mail from the attorney for Coconut Plantation, Lyle Hosaka, threatening to get a court order to allow him to cross examine me in court regarding my assets. (see his message below) No hearing date has been set for that, nor do I know if the judge received or granted the bad, nasty lawyers' request to do their nasty deeds...
I need help with documents that I may present to the court that will protect me if and when I refuse to enter their courtroom. I was told by some people to use Convention IV per Prof. Francis Boyle. I need to research that. I don't want to step into that courtroom, as a Kanaka maoli and through past experience I know that I was discriminated against because I am Kanaka maoli, my political activism and the Naue na iwi case; and because the court refuses to acknowledge all traditional and customary rights of cultural claims, practices and beliefs.
KTF is an organization that has no money so they are not feeling any threat, but KTF and NHLC will be appealing the judgment to permit the building of the resorts. KTF members are very concerned about my situation and are offering to support and help me as much as they can.
Mahalo a nui for taking the time to read this long message.
I am praying that the judgment for costs may go away if the appeal is granted. I am praying for kokua and support, not necessarily for money, but for prayers and solutions.
Me ke aloha ana`ole,
Kupuna Nani Rogers
-------
Forwarded text:
From: David Kimo Frankel
Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 1:43:31 PMSubject: it gets worse
Lyle Hosaka, of Coconut Plantations, is doing something even more egregious.
He has requested information from far more banks than Joe Stewart did, including several federal credit unions:
Garden Island, Kauai Community, Kauai Government Employees, Kauai Teachers , Kaumakani, Kekaha, Koloa and McBryde.
He has also asked the Court for an order allowing him to cross examine you in court and to bring:
1. Any and all pay stubs you received in the past 6 months.
2. Any and all account statements that you received in the past 6 months
3. Any and all check registers.
4. Any and all documents evidencing a debt owed to you.
5. Any and all documents evidencing ownership of and/or an interest in real property
6. A list of all 3rd parties that owe money and/or property to you
(The preceding post has been edited from its original content)
Monday, December 7, 2009
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
R-E-S-P-E-C-T: The “old boys club” on Kaua`i is certainly not the province of a single gender anymore. The phrase is merely an anachronistic remnant of he days when only boys would and could be boys.
Today, regardless of gender, any jerkwad who has the self-initiative to step forward and “wrestle with the pigs” for a few years- developing a reputation for being willing to do and say just about anything to defend the privilege of the higher-ups by deflecting and absorbing the not-so-outrageous slings and arrows of public outrage at their future cronies' corruption- can live the dream of a becoming a “made man”- or woman... a mid-level “untouchable” as activist Ray Chuan used to call them.
But that doesn’t mean that they or their benefactors don’t still live in the dark ages when it comes to the on-the-job treatment of women- especially those that don’t respect the system that protects the protected and spits out dissidence.
A year ago this week we reported on the lawsuit of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin who has sued the Kaua`i Transpiration Agency- specifically, Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for what appears to be a pervasive hostile atmosphere toward women at the agency.
As we wrote at the time:
Just as appalling as the actual discrimination is the fact the lawsuit was filed only because a year went by after Ah Quin’s filing of Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints without any attempt by the county to respond or even attempt to investigate the charges.
Then in April we reported on the case of former long time Deputy County Attorney Margaret (Hanson) Sueoka who has filed an EEOC complaint that has so far has resulted in the county attorney’s securing of $50,000 from the council to defend the charge. Her case remains under seal with the county apparently having responded to the EEOC case, unlike when Ah Quin’s case was ignored.
But the county still apparently hasn’t learned to respond to EEOC cases before they become lawsuits- where the specific details are publicly made available- and they apparently still haven’t learned much about responding to on-the-job sexual harassment claims or doing anything to stop them before they begin... much less disciplining the harassers.
These cases and others over the years however pale in comparison to the case of Kristan C. Hirakawa who, in a lawsuit filed in US District Court, alleges that even though she had won her 2001 EEOC case against the county while working for, surprise-surprise the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), when the county, as required by the settlement, “reassigned” her to the Liquor Commission, she was further harassed at her new job.
The original filing had apparently never seen the light of reporting because EEOC complaints are considered confidential under federal law and are therefore exempt from the state’s sunshine and open records laws. The EEOC does however issue “Right to Sue” letters giving “permission” for a suit to arise from the complaint if the defendant doesn’t “settle” during the EEOC phase as it appears happened in Hirakawa’s current case.
According to the lawsuit filed through her attorneys, former state Attorney General Margery S. Bronster and local attorney Daniel G. Hempey:
(p)reviously, in approximately 2001, Plaintiff was employed as a dispatcher for the Kauai Police Department when she was sexually harassed by a co-worker. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). As a result of the previous case, Plaintiff suffered serious physiological injury due to the sexual harassment, improper response to her legitimate complaint and loss of privacy that was inflicted on her while working in the Kauai Police Department. The matter settled without admitting fault.
Defendant County of Kauai agreed to identify and assist Plaintiff with obtaining another County job as a result of settlement negotiations in the previous case. Ultimately, Plaintiff obtained employment at the Kauai County Liquor Commission.
But that didn’t stop her new supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, from continuing the typical cycle of sexual harassment followed by retaliation for whistle-blowing or the county’s, not just indifference but, apparently active aiding and abetting of Shimatsu’s actions
According to the suit,
(Hirakawa’s) situation within the Kauai County Liquor Commission remained relentless as the discrimination and harassment increased to the point of disabling her with severe emotional distress. Per doctor's orders, she has stopped working as a result, and remains unable to work in her County job due to the Defendant's failure and/or refusal to properly address the discrimination, harassment and retaliation she has suffered in the workplace.
We could characterize or pick and edit only the highlights of the sordid details but, with no space limitation and the fact that the allegations in the suit paint such a good portrait of Shimatsu and the county’s specific alleged actions- including the county attorney’s office’s alleged failure to investigate the EEOC claim and their decisions to rather fight it without any inquiry- we will print the pertinent section of the “Predicate Facts” contained in the suit.
--------
Predicate Facts 9-36
The County of Kauai, obviously aware of Plaintiffs previous case and emotional condition, placed her in a workplace with a known sexual harasser as a co-worker and a supervisor with no prior training in sexual harassment law. On information and belief, the County of Kauai has consistently failed to meet its legal obligations to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
Upon relocation to the Kauai County Liquor Commission, Plaintiff was immediately subject to offensive conduct on the basis of her sex. Her supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, made sarcastic comments about sexual harassment to Plaintiff, often alluding to her history of having made a sexual harassment complaint. Shimatsu complained to Plaintiff that he had to order all of the posters [of scantily clad women] removed from the workplace because the "County made me hire you."'
During the course of her employment Plaintiff was often the subject of ridicule, sexual innuendo, sexual emails and insults from her supervisor. Shimatsu called her holistic medical practitioner a "witch doctor", and wrote an email to her saying: Use your common sense...I think you'll stay healthy...Oh yeah, and sleep with your clothes on. You could catch a cold, the flu and get pregnant without your clothes on...all bad ailments.
Shimatsu's demeaning conduct continued. After Plaintiff entered her baby into a contest (which she did not win), Shimatsu left a newspaper clipping of the winning baby in her mail bin where all her co-workers could see it. Above the picture of the winning mother and baby Shimatsu wrote a note saying: I really think the baby won because the mother was cute. With that in mind, you really need to do something about yourself...so your baby can win. Your baby did her part by being cute... it's now up to you.
In May 2007, Shimatsu called Plaintiff into his office to tell her he heard from someone that her boyfriend was getting deployed to the Middle East. He stated, "You should buy your boyfriend a lot of condoms because there are a lot of prostitutes where he'll be stationed." He followed up in an email saying he doesn't think there are really prostitutes there.
At work the sexual harassment was incessant. Shimatsu continued degrading Plaintiff calling her such names as "tonta," meaning slow, dumb or stupid, and "shibai." Shimatsu made insolent comments about Plaintiff when she made a mistake but did not treat her co-workers rudely.
When she requested vacation time to care for her four month-old baby, Shimatsu responded in a memo stating: Your request for Vac/ Ct...was approved after much discussion...Lady, you give me a headache... always asking for special treatment as a female. I kind of feel its sexual harassment and should look into it. I think that's the only way I'm going to get rid of this nasty headache...what you think?
Plaintiff noted that other employees were not subject to insolent comments when asking for time off.
On another occasion, Shimatsu emailed to Plaintiff a photo of an attractive female dressed only in a tiny, diamond studded bikini. Shimatsu typed "You Wish" on the email before sending the email to Plaintiff from his work computer.
Plaintiff was unable to be in such a virulent environment where working meant being in constant dialogue with the perpetrator. She took leave on a disability claim. She sought medical help and counseling because of the harassment and discrimination at the Kauai County Liquor Commission. Under direction of Plaintiffs medical providers, she was not allowed to resume working while the harasser remained there or until the situation had been corrected.
In June of 2007, Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment to the County and sought disability leave from work.
The County did not pay on Plaintiffs disabilities claim and did not separate her from Shimatsu.
The County has failed to properly respond to or address the alleged sexual harassment complaint raised by Plaintiff.
The County broke its own County policy on sexual harassment as promised to Plaintiff and other County employees in a number of respects. First, the County promises that complaints of sexual harassment will be investigated within two weeks time. No timely investigation was done in Plaintiff's case. Secondly, County policy promises that the findings and results of an investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment will be made available to the complainant. The results of any investigation into sexual harassment have still not been made available to Plaintiff. And thirdly, County policy promises that corrective action will be taken when a County employee suffers from sexual harassment. On information and belief, no such corrective action has been taken.
Upon information and belief, the County's policy on sexual harassment in the workplace was intended to comply with applicable law.
Furthermore, the County ignored State and Federal law regarding the matter being pursued. The County instead protected the accused, her supervisor Shimatsu, offering no remedial action to Plaintiff and failing to conduct even a basic investigation for several months.
In many cases, County policy directs employees to report allegations of sexual harassment to the Office of the County Attorney to ensure, among other things, that the County acts in compliance with State and Federal law. However, in this case, the Office of the County Attorney chose to arbitrarily dispute Plaintiff's claim without adequate investigation and contrary to State and Federal law.
Upon information and belief, the County used a woman with no prior training or experience in sexual harassment investigations to perform the investigation of Plaintiffs complaint of sexual harassment.
A few months later, Plaintiff, through counsel, asked the Office of the County Attorney if she could have the results of its investigation(s) in Plaintiff's report of sexual harassment. The request was made pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 92F et seq. (The Hawaii Public Records Act), but the Office of the County Attorney failed and/or refused to provide the results of the investigation to Plaintiff's attorney.
In August 2007, the County contacted Plaintiff and informed her that an interview was forthcoming, but it wasn't until September 14, 2007 when Ann Wooten, the chosen investigator, interviewed Plaintiff.
On information and belief, the County never asked Shimatsu if the Plaintiffs allegations against him were true.
The investigation was only performed after Plaintiff's disability pay had expired. The County left Plaintiff, a single mother of two, in a precarious financial position because of the delay in investigating her complaint and the lack of corrective action taken.
Plaintiff remains unable to resume working in direct contact with the same supervisor. Her accumulated losses approximate $50,000.00 even after mitigating wages lost by securing lower-paying employment. Her new position pays significantly less than her employment with the County.
The aforesaid events have changed the course of Plaintiff's life and career.
Plaintiff has complied with the administrative procedural requirements for maintaining a civil action for discrimination on the basis of sex and for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, and the EEOC has made a determination of cause to believe that the alleged sexual harassment occurred.
On November 13, 2008 the EEOC found that "The Commission's investigation determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party was subjected to sexual harassment because of her sex, female."
Thereafter the EEOC issued a "Right to Sue" letter and Plaintiff, and timely filed this action with 90 days of issuance of her Right to Sue letter, issued on March 3, 2009.
At all relevant times herein, the acts of the County were undertaken within the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment.
Today, regardless of gender, any jerkwad who has the self-initiative to step forward and “wrestle with the pigs” for a few years- developing a reputation for being willing to do and say just about anything to defend the privilege of the higher-ups by deflecting and absorbing the not-so-outrageous slings and arrows of public outrage at their future cronies' corruption- can live the dream of a becoming a “made man”- or woman... a mid-level “untouchable” as activist Ray Chuan used to call them.
But that doesn’t mean that they or their benefactors don’t still live in the dark ages when it comes to the on-the-job treatment of women- especially those that don’t respect the system that protects the protected and spits out dissidence.
A year ago this week we reported on the lawsuit of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin who has sued the Kaua`i Transpiration Agency- specifically, Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for what appears to be a pervasive hostile atmosphere toward women at the agency.
As we wrote at the time:
Just as appalling as the actual discrimination is the fact the lawsuit was filed only because a year went by after Ah Quin’s filing of Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints without any attempt by the county to respond or even attempt to investigate the charges.
Then in April we reported on the case of former long time Deputy County Attorney Margaret (Hanson) Sueoka who has filed an EEOC complaint that has so far has resulted in the county attorney’s securing of $50,000 from the council to defend the charge. Her case remains under seal with the county apparently having responded to the EEOC case, unlike when Ah Quin’s case was ignored.
But the county still apparently hasn’t learned to respond to EEOC cases before they become lawsuits- where the specific details are publicly made available- and they apparently still haven’t learned much about responding to on-the-job sexual harassment claims or doing anything to stop them before they begin... much less disciplining the harassers.
These cases and others over the years however pale in comparison to the case of Kristan C. Hirakawa who, in a lawsuit filed in US District Court, alleges that even though she had won her 2001 EEOC case against the county while working for, surprise-surprise the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), when the county, as required by the settlement, “reassigned” her to the Liquor Commission, she was further harassed at her new job.
The original filing had apparently never seen the light of reporting because EEOC complaints are considered confidential under federal law and are therefore exempt from the state’s sunshine and open records laws. The EEOC does however issue “Right to Sue” letters giving “permission” for a suit to arise from the complaint if the defendant doesn’t “settle” during the EEOC phase as it appears happened in Hirakawa’s current case.
According to the lawsuit filed through her attorneys, former state Attorney General Margery S. Bronster and local attorney Daniel G. Hempey:
(p)reviously, in approximately 2001, Plaintiff was employed as a dispatcher for the Kauai Police Department when she was sexually harassed by a co-worker. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). As a result of the previous case, Plaintiff suffered serious physiological injury due to the sexual harassment, improper response to her legitimate complaint and loss of privacy that was inflicted on her while working in the Kauai Police Department. The matter settled without admitting fault.
Defendant County of Kauai agreed to identify and assist Plaintiff with obtaining another County job as a result of settlement negotiations in the previous case. Ultimately, Plaintiff obtained employment at the Kauai County Liquor Commission.
But that didn’t stop her new supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, from continuing the typical cycle of sexual harassment followed by retaliation for whistle-blowing or the county’s, not just indifference but, apparently active aiding and abetting of Shimatsu’s actions
According to the suit,
(Hirakawa’s) situation within the Kauai County Liquor Commission remained relentless as the discrimination and harassment increased to the point of disabling her with severe emotional distress. Per doctor's orders, she has stopped working as a result, and remains unable to work in her County job due to the Defendant's failure and/or refusal to properly address the discrimination, harassment and retaliation she has suffered in the workplace.
We could characterize or pick and edit only the highlights of the sordid details but, with no space limitation and the fact that the allegations in the suit paint such a good portrait of Shimatsu and the county’s specific alleged actions- including the county attorney’s office’s alleged failure to investigate the EEOC claim and their decisions to rather fight it without any inquiry- we will print the pertinent section of the “Predicate Facts” contained in the suit.
--------
Predicate Facts 9-36
The County of Kauai, obviously aware of Plaintiffs previous case and emotional condition, placed her in a workplace with a known sexual harasser as a co-worker and a supervisor with no prior training in sexual harassment law. On information and belief, the County of Kauai has consistently failed to meet its legal obligations to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
Upon relocation to the Kauai County Liquor Commission, Plaintiff was immediately subject to offensive conduct on the basis of her sex. Her supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, made sarcastic comments about sexual harassment to Plaintiff, often alluding to her history of having made a sexual harassment complaint. Shimatsu complained to Plaintiff that he had to order all of the posters [of scantily clad women] removed from the workplace because the "County made me hire you."'
During the course of her employment Plaintiff was often the subject of ridicule, sexual innuendo, sexual emails and insults from her supervisor. Shimatsu called her holistic medical practitioner a "witch doctor", and wrote an email to her saying: Use your common sense...I think you'll stay healthy...Oh yeah, and sleep with your clothes on. You could catch a cold, the flu and get pregnant without your clothes on...all bad ailments.
Shimatsu's demeaning conduct continued. After Plaintiff entered her baby into a contest (which she did not win), Shimatsu left a newspaper clipping of the winning baby in her mail bin where all her co-workers could see it. Above the picture of the winning mother and baby Shimatsu wrote a note saying: I really think the baby won because the mother was cute. With that in mind, you really need to do something about yourself...so your baby can win. Your baby did her part by being cute... it's now up to you.
In May 2007, Shimatsu called Plaintiff into his office to tell her he heard from someone that her boyfriend was getting deployed to the Middle East. He stated, "You should buy your boyfriend a lot of condoms because there are a lot of prostitutes where he'll be stationed." He followed up in an email saying he doesn't think there are really prostitutes there.
At work the sexual harassment was incessant. Shimatsu continued degrading Plaintiff calling her such names as "tonta," meaning slow, dumb or stupid, and "shibai." Shimatsu made insolent comments about Plaintiff when she made a mistake but did not treat her co-workers rudely.
When she requested vacation time to care for her four month-old baby, Shimatsu responded in a memo stating: Your request for Vac/ Ct...was approved after much discussion...Lady, you give me a headache... always asking for special treatment as a female. I kind of feel its sexual harassment and should look into it. I think that's the only way I'm going to get rid of this nasty headache...what you think?
Plaintiff noted that other employees were not subject to insolent comments when asking for time off.
On another occasion, Shimatsu emailed to Plaintiff a photo of an attractive female dressed only in a tiny, diamond studded bikini. Shimatsu typed "You Wish" on the email before sending the email to Plaintiff from his work computer.
Plaintiff was unable to be in such a virulent environment where working meant being in constant dialogue with the perpetrator. She took leave on a disability claim. She sought medical help and counseling because of the harassment and discrimination at the Kauai County Liquor Commission. Under direction of Plaintiffs medical providers, she was not allowed to resume working while the harasser remained there or until the situation had been corrected.
In June of 2007, Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment to the County and sought disability leave from work.
The County did not pay on Plaintiffs disabilities claim and did not separate her from Shimatsu.
The County has failed to properly respond to or address the alleged sexual harassment complaint raised by Plaintiff.
The County broke its own County policy on sexual harassment as promised to Plaintiff and other County employees in a number of respects. First, the County promises that complaints of sexual harassment will be investigated within two weeks time. No timely investigation was done in Plaintiff's case. Secondly, County policy promises that the findings and results of an investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment will be made available to the complainant. The results of any investigation into sexual harassment have still not been made available to Plaintiff. And thirdly, County policy promises that corrective action will be taken when a County employee suffers from sexual harassment. On information and belief, no such corrective action has been taken.
Upon information and belief, the County's policy on sexual harassment in the workplace was intended to comply with applicable law.
Furthermore, the County ignored State and Federal law regarding the matter being pursued. The County instead protected the accused, her supervisor Shimatsu, offering no remedial action to Plaintiff and failing to conduct even a basic investigation for several months.
In many cases, County policy directs employees to report allegations of sexual harassment to the Office of the County Attorney to ensure, among other things, that the County acts in compliance with State and Federal law. However, in this case, the Office of the County Attorney chose to arbitrarily dispute Plaintiff's claim without adequate investigation and contrary to State and Federal law.
Upon information and belief, the County used a woman with no prior training or experience in sexual harassment investigations to perform the investigation of Plaintiffs complaint of sexual harassment.
A few months later, Plaintiff, through counsel, asked the Office of the County Attorney if she could have the results of its investigation(s) in Plaintiff's report of sexual harassment. The request was made pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 92F et seq. (The Hawaii Public Records Act), but the Office of the County Attorney failed and/or refused to provide the results of the investigation to Plaintiff's attorney.
In August 2007, the County contacted Plaintiff and informed her that an interview was forthcoming, but it wasn't until September 14, 2007 when Ann Wooten, the chosen investigator, interviewed Plaintiff.
On information and belief, the County never asked Shimatsu if the Plaintiffs allegations against him were true.
The investigation was only performed after Plaintiff's disability pay had expired. The County left Plaintiff, a single mother of two, in a precarious financial position because of the delay in investigating her complaint and the lack of corrective action taken.
Plaintiff remains unable to resume working in direct contact with the same supervisor. Her accumulated losses approximate $50,000.00 even after mitigating wages lost by securing lower-paying employment. Her new position pays significantly less than her employment with the County.
The aforesaid events have changed the course of Plaintiff's life and career.
Plaintiff has complied with the administrative procedural requirements for maintaining a civil action for discrimination on the basis of sex and for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, and the EEOC has made a determination of cause to believe that the alleged sexual harassment occurred.
On November 13, 2008 the EEOC found that "The Commission's investigation determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party was subjected to sexual harassment because of her sex, female."
Thereafter the EEOC issued a "Right to Sue" letter and Plaintiff, and timely filed this action with 90 days of issuance of her Right to Sue letter, issued on March 3, 2009.
At all relevant times herein, the acts of the County were undertaken within the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment.
Friday, July 17, 2009
CANIS CANNABINOID CAPO
CANIS CANNABINOID CAPO: On January 30 this year we titled our post 2009: THE YEAR OF CANNABIS REFORM and detailed eight bills the legislature was considering that would, if enacted, end the insane way our state treats cannabis, especially our medical marijuana program.
But of course our Contadina legislature was too busy dodging votes on civil rights for gays and lesbians, secretly trying to raise campaign contribution limits and blocking pilot public financing of elections programs that they failed to get those eight great tomatoes out of that little bitty committee can.
The good news is that on Wednesday the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto of a bill that “(e)stablishes a task force to examine issues relating to medical cannabis patients and current medical cannabis laws”- no thanks to Kaua`i Representatives Roland Sagum and Jimmy Tokioka who were among nine reps that refused to vote to override the veto.
The bad news is that it deals only medical marijuana, not our draconian and idiotic prohibitionist marijuana laws that cost us millions by incarcerating non-violent recreational pot smokers and are responsible for the violence and killing by organized crime outfits that proliferate due solely to the illegality.
More good news is that the task force- which, like the administration of our medical marijuana program is, unfortunately, administratively tied to the Department of Public Safety- provides for seats for many medical marijuana advocacy groups and individuals including:
- The Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i which describes itself as the “ leading organization dedicated to safe, responsible, and effective drug policies” in Hawai`i. Their Drug Policy Action Group was instrumental in getting the task force law passed.
- The Honolulu Chapter of Americans for Safe Access whose web site says they are “the largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research”.
- The West O`ahu Hope For A Cure Foundation, an AIDS advocacy group.
- The American Civil Liberties Union
- One medical cannabis advocate who is a patient that uses cannabis in a medically authorized or recommended manner to be appointed by the governor
- A physician who authorizes or recommends the use of medical cannabis that is nominated from a list jointly submitted by the senate president and speaker of the house of representatives to be appointed by the governor;
- A Hawaii-licensed physician who specializes in pain control and has issued a medical cannabis recommendation that is nominated from a list jointly submitted by the senate president and speaker of the house of representatives to be appointed by the governor;
-One registered caregiver to be appointed by the governor;
The five areas they will examine are also promising. They are charged to:
(1) Examine current state statutes, state administrative rules, and all county policies and procedures relating to the medical marijuana program;
(2) Examine all issues and obstacles that qualifying patients have encountered with the medical marijuana program;
(3) Examine all issue and obstacles that state and county law enforcement agencies have encountered with the medical marijuana program;
(4) Compare and contrast Hawaii's medical marijuana program with all other state medical marijuana programs; and
(5) Address other issues and perform any other function necessary as the task force deems appropriate, relating to the medical marijuana program.
They will have help on #4 with the provision that “(no) later than August 30, 2009, the legislative reference bureau shall complete and submit to the task force a report on the policies and procedures for access, distribution, security, and other relevant issues related to the medical use of cannabis for all the states that currently have a medical cannabis program”
The final report is due no less than 20 days before the 2010 legislative session.
One of the main goals of reformers, as we mentioned above, is to remove administration of the medical marijuana program from the Department of Public Safety- the department that administers the prison system- and get it into the Department of Health where programs in every other state with medical marijuana laws have their programs.
Right now our system is what local attorney Daniel Hempey called an unconstitutional violation of the medical privacy rights of patients while appearing yesterday on Joan Conrow’s and Jimmy Trujillo’s KKCR-FM radio program on cannabis reform.
The current set up is that local law enforcement maintain lists of people who qualify rather than having the Department of Health maintain the list and having police check with them if need be. That led to the actual release of the list to the press last year as we detailed last July.
Another must is a system for growing, procuring and distributing marijuana to patients. Other states such as California have actual stores where qualified patients can obtain their medicine.
Although in the past the federal government has harassed the distribution centers the new administration has eliminated those raids as part of ending the “war on drugs”. That makes moot one of the prime arguments used by local law enforcement in opposing such a distribution system.
Another thing people here on Kaua`i at least can do is work to defeat both Tokioka and Sagum in the next election. We hope there will be viable candidates to challenge them on this and many other issues, not the least of which is their opposition to the civil unions bill. We’ll be detailing their support for other regressive and oppressive right-wing nut measures as the 2010 election approaches.
For those on other islands the others who voted against the override were: Awana, Ching, Finnegan, Har, Ito, Manahan, and Yamane.
The non medical marijuana bills from the last session such as those for decriminalization and lowest enforcement priority are detailed in our “Year of Cannabis Reform” piece linked at the top of this article.
In an age when serious discussion is in the air on the mainland that may lead to complete legalization as a way to raise revenues through taxation it’s almost comical to see attitudes from local police departments and prosecutors opposing reform of our laws.
You would think they, like other law enforcement professionals across the nation, would wake up to the fact that it is the illegality itself that is lethal not the drug itself which has never directly caused a death.
(Parenthetically the current talk of legalization and taxation seems to be self-defeating. Presuming that any taxation scheme would include a ban on growing your own or trying to collect taxes on home grown, the whole idea of getting the criminality out of the mix would seemingly be defeated.)
Anyone seeking to assist in the task force effort can contact the Drug Policy Forum and anyone who thinks they might both qualify for and have the time to fill one of the patient, physician or caretaker positions can probably do the same or contact the appropriate appointing authority.
As it stands now we understand there aren't even any physicians on Kaua`i who will participate in the program because of the way it’s set up.
A program that is designed to alleviate pain and provide treatment for sick people has become laughable if not cruel and inhumane.
This is an opportunity we can’t afford to squander.
But of course our Contadina legislature was too busy dodging votes on civil rights for gays and lesbians, secretly trying to raise campaign contribution limits and blocking pilot public financing of elections programs that they failed to get those eight great tomatoes out of that little bitty committee can.
The good news is that on Wednesday the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto of a bill that “(e)stablishes a task force to examine issues relating to medical cannabis patients and current medical cannabis laws”- no thanks to Kaua`i Representatives Roland Sagum and Jimmy Tokioka who were among nine reps that refused to vote to override the veto.
The bad news is that it deals only medical marijuana, not our draconian and idiotic prohibitionist marijuana laws that cost us millions by incarcerating non-violent recreational pot smokers and are responsible for the violence and killing by organized crime outfits that proliferate due solely to the illegality.
More good news is that the task force- which, like the administration of our medical marijuana program is, unfortunately, administratively tied to the Department of Public Safety- provides for seats for many medical marijuana advocacy groups and individuals including:
- The Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i which describes itself as the “ leading organization dedicated to safe, responsible, and effective drug policies” in Hawai`i. Their Drug Policy Action Group was instrumental in getting the task force law passed.
- The Honolulu Chapter of Americans for Safe Access whose web site says they are “the largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research”.
- The West O`ahu Hope For A Cure Foundation, an AIDS advocacy group.
- The American Civil Liberties Union
- One medical cannabis advocate who is a patient that uses cannabis in a medically authorized or recommended manner to be appointed by the governor
- A physician who authorizes or recommends the use of medical cannabis that is nominated from a list jointly submitted by the senate president and speaker of the house of representatives to be appointed by the governor;
- A Hawaii-licensed physician who specializes in pain control and has issued a medical cannabis recommendation that is nominated from a list jointly submitted by the senate president and speaker of the house of representatives to be appointed by the governor;
-One registered caregiver to be appointed by the governor;
The five areas they will examine are also promising. They are charged to:
(1) Examine current state statutes, state administrative rules, and all county policies and procedures relating to the medical marijuana program;
(2) Examine all issues and obstacles that qualifying patients have encountered with the medical marijuana program;
(3) Examine all issue and obstacles that state and county law enforcement agencies have encountered with the medical marijuana program;
(4) Compare and contrast Hawaii's medical marijuana program with all other state medical marijuana programs; and
(5) Address other issues and perform any other function necessary as the task force deems appropriate, relating to the medical marijuana program.
They will have help on #4 with the provision that “(no) later than August 30, 2009, the legislative reference bureau shall complete and submit to the task force a report on the policies and procedures for access, distribution, security, and other relevant issues related to the medical use of cannabis for all the states that currently have a medical cannabis program”
The final report is due no less than 20 days before the 2010 legislative session.
One of the main goals of reformers, as we mentioned above, is to remove administration of the medical marijuana program from the Department of Public Safety- the department that administers the prison system- and get it into the Department of Health where programs in every other state with medical marijuana laws have their programs.
Right now our system is what local attorney Daniel Hempey called an unconstitutional violation of the medical privacy rights of patients while appearing yesterday on Joan Conrow’s and Jimmy Trujillo’s KKCR-FM radio program on cannabis reform.
The current set up is that local law enforcement maintain lists of people who qualify rather than having the Department of Health maintain the list and having police check with them if need be. That led to the actual release of the list to the press last year as we detailed last July.
Another must is a system for growing, procuring and distributing marijuana to patients. Other states such as California have actual stores where qualified patients can obtain their medicine.
Although in the past the federal government has harassed the distribution centers the new administration has eliminated those raids as part of ending the “war on drugs”. That makes moot one of the prime arguments used by local law enforcement in opposing such a distribution system.
Another thing people here on Kaua`i at least can do is work to defeat both Tokioka and Sagum in the next election. We hope there will be viable candidates to challenge them on this and many other issues, not the least of which is their opposition to the civil unions bill. We’ll be detailing their support for other regressive and oppressive right-wing nut measures as the 2010 election approaches.
For those on other islands the others who voted against the override were: Awana, Ching, Finnegan, Har, Ito, Manahan, and Yamane.
The non medical marijuana bills from the last session such as those for decriminalization and lowest enforcement priority are detailed in our “Year of Cannabis Reform” piece linked at the top of this article.
In an age when serious discussion is in the air on the mainland that may lead to complete legalization as a way to raise revenues through taxation it’s almost comical to see attitudes from local police departments and prosecutors opposing reform of our laws.
You would think they, like other law enforcement professionals across the nation, would wake up to the fact that it is the illegality itself that is lethal not the drug itself which has never directly caused a death.
(Parenthetically the current talk of legalization and taxation seems to be self-defeating. Presuming that any taxation scheme would include a ban on growing your own or trying to collect taxes on home grown, the whole idea of getting the criminality out of the mix would seemingly be defeated.)
Anyone seeking to assist in the task force effort can contact the Drug Policy Forum and anyone who thinks they might both qualify for and have the time to fill one of the patient, physician or caretaker positions can probably do the same or contact the appropriate appointing authority.
As it stands now we understand there aren't even any physicians on Kaua`i who will participate in the program because of the way it’s set up.
A program that is designed to alleviate pain and provide treatment for sick people has become laughable if not cruel and inhumane.
This is an opportunity we can’t afford to squander.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
