SEPARATING THE WHITE FROM THE RICE

SEPARATING THE WHITE FROM THE RICE: It can't be a surprise to anyone who has followed our coverage of"Rice-Cooker-Gate"- going back to November of 2010 - that Councilmember Tim Bynum has finally filed a malicious prosecution suit against Kaua`i Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho.

The content of the suit- the "Facts" section of which are presented below, interspersed with background material and comments- won't shock our readers very much either. But for anyone who hasn't been able or attempted to put our real-time exposure of Iseri's blatant abuses of power into an even more horrific narrative, Bynum's attorneys- including local lawyer Dan Hempey and former State Attorney General Marjorie Bronster- have served up for Iseri what many hope will be some measure of the proverbial "dish best served cold"

The barely-scratching-the-surface coverage in the local and Honolulu papers failed to go into any depth, as could be expected. And that left former Kaua`i Council Chair Kaipo Asing- the mastermind behind the political hatchet job against Bynum- pretty much unidentified.

While his role is central to the plot and he is identified in the narrative of the suit as a driving force behind the farce, he isn't named as a defendant, so his role has yet to be widely exposed.

For the underpinnings of the whole story you can use the search box at the top of this page to go back and read how much of the basis for the suit began with Bynum's challenges of the paternalistic power exercised by the once beloved and eventually corrupt and reviled "Uncle Chair," as Bynum and others had taken to calling Asing.

In brief, toward the end of his career, Asing, the one time "voice of the people," began to abuse his evolving power until the wheels of Kaua`i government meshed solely at his whim.

Bynum, along with now-retired Councilperson Lani Kawahara, dared to challenge Asing's power grab simply by asking for things like adherence to the state's sunshine and open records laws, general transparency and public access to documents. They even had to do battle to place items on the agenda, something that Asing had come to deny councilmembers on matters which Asing didn't want publicly addressed.

When she was a councilmember, Iseri, along with fellow Councilperson Mel Rapozo, had become the chief minions of the Minotaur, owing much of their political careers to Asing's benevolence.

Nothing was too much for Asing to ask.

Going deeper though, much of this whole debacle has roots- as does everything seemingly on Kaua`i- in the infamous "Lap Dancer" episode, as described in the book KPD Blue by Tony Sommer which is serialized at this site (see left rail). That led to the infamous Executive Session (ES) 177 where Rapozo, a former Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) officer who was present in the room at police headquarters that night she was fondled by officers, went into a rant about the incident and other potentially explosive internal KPD matters.

Despite orders from the Office of Information Practices (OIP) that the potentially explosive minutes be released publicly, Asing successfully went all the way to the Hawai`i Supreme Court (HSC) to protect Rapozo from exposure, leaving Rapozo- and his ally Iseri of course- forever politically indebted to Asing.

In addition to everything else, Iseri had her own personal feud going with Bynum, much of it seemingly a part of Iseri's well known "anti-haole (Caucasian)" attitude- a mindset finally manifesting itself in the recent settlement of an EEOC racial harassment case.

Another factor in Iseri's enmity for Bynum was her opposition to Bynum's measure which ended Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) on Agriculturally zoned land but allowed existing ones to be grandfathered in. It was a major issue on Kaua`i and passage of the resulting ordinance left Iseri, Rapozo and Asing seething and licking their wounds.

So Iseri needed very little prodding to join Rapozo in doing the dirty work for "team Asing" during the well-documented good governance "Battle Royale" between Bynum and Asing.

That set up the "set up," so to speak, and Iseri set on a path to "get" Bynum after she successfully ran for Prosecuting Attorney in 2008.

The "Facts" section of the lawsuit lays out a chilling tale of how Planning Department Supervising Inspector Sheila Miyake trumped up charges against Bynum at the behest of Iseri and ultimately Asing, both of whom are identified by Miyake as apparent co-initiators of the scheme to issue the notice of a building violation.

Missing is the back story of Asing's years-long quest to silence Bynum who had been a thorn in Asing's side on the council as we briefly touched on above. Those seeking to read the whole sordid tale can make good use of the search box at the top of this page, inserting names and terms we've used here in order to follow the blow-by-blow accounts we've presented over the past almost three years.

The detailed "facts," as presented in suit itself (in italics), are a worth a look too. So, interspersed with a little background, here they are.

------

Beginning in 2008, BYNUM, following legal guidance offered by the Kaua'i County Attorney's Office, voted for certain amendments to Kaua'i zoning laws with which Defendants MIYAKE and ISERI-CARVALHO disagreed.

BYNUM's right to vote as he did was protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and his votes related to matters of public concern.

Defendant ISERI-CARVALHO left employment with the Kaua'i County Council after she began her term as Kaua'i County Prosecuting Attorney in 2008.

Defendant ISERI-CARVALHO has a history of animosity toward Plaintiff. She harbors personal animosity toward the Plaintiff. She vehemently disagreed with Plaintiffs vote for certain amendments to Kaua'i zoning laws beginning in 2008.

Defendant MIYAKE has a history of animosity toward Plaintiff. She harbors personal animosity toward the Plaintiff.

The "amendment" was a successful effort by Bynum to "grandfather" existing Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) on agriculturally zoned land but ban new ones.

From there Bynum's suit sets up some of the events that led Iseri to go after Bynum

2010 was an election year for the Kaua'i County Council. After the election, it was known that Deputy County Attorney Michael Dahilig would replace the sitting Director of the Kaua'i Planning Department, Ian Costa as of December 1,2010.

Prior to the 2010 election, Attorneys Michael Dahilig and Ian Jung were employed as deputy county attorneys for the Defendant COUNTY OF KAUAI. These two attorneys were tasked with, among other things, advising the various employees of the PLANNING DEPARTMENT, including but not limited to Defendant MIYAKE, as to the proper interpretation and enforcement of the COUNTY OF KAUAI'S Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ("CZO") as well as regarding the ability and/or constraints on Planning Officials to enter private property for the purpose of conducting inspections related to zoning compliance.

At all times pertinent to this matter, and to this day, Plaintiff was the owner of a single family home in Kapaa, Hawai'i.

Pursuant to the Kaua'i CZO, it is illegal to convert a single-family dwelling unit into a multi-family dwelling unit without an appropriate permit.

In 2005, BYNUM built an addition onto his home to accommodate the four (4) generations of family members living there at the time. The drawings for the addition went through informal and formal review by the Planning Department. Prior to permitting, a representative of the Planning Department informed BYNUM that the addition, as designed, was legal as long as no stove was installed. The plans for the addition were approved by the Planning Department, after being circulated to and approved by various departments including the Planning Department and a valid building permit was issued. The County sent inspectors during construction, and conducted a final inspection, after construction, after which the Plaintiff was issued a certificate of occupancy.

A laundry room separated the original home from the permitted addition. The door between the original home and the addition had a lock at the time the addition was approved and permitted. The permitted addition also contained a counter top/bar and a sink, as well as several electrical receptacles.

In March and April 2010, plaintiff BYNUM allowed his daughter's friend, Victory Yokotake, to occupy a room in and reside in the BYNUM family home.

While residing at the BYNUM home, Ms. Yokotake had access to the family kitchen.

In early 2010 a female came to the BYNUM residence and allegedly assaulted Victory Yokotake. A police officer came to the house to investigate. The police officer generated a report that incorrectly characterized the addition to the BYNUM home as a separate apartment.

At the time it was generated, this police report regarding the assault of Ms. Yokotake was a protected and confidential document, only to be lawfully viewed by members of the police department and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.

But even though there was nothing illegal in what Bynum was doing, Iseri was determined to bend the facts and the law- to the point of breaking- in order to put an end to Bynum's political career and, she hoped, to convict him of a supposed crime... one that didn't exist.

In early 2010 an unknown person who had lawful access to the police report informed Defendants MIYAKE and ISERI-CARVALHO that s/he believed that BYNUM was "renting out a portion of his residence" illegally.

Defendants MIYAKE and ISERI-CARVALHO each knew or should have known at the time of the report that there was nothing illegal about plaintiff renting out a portion of his home to his daughter's friend.

Upon receiving the allegation that BYNUM was renting out a portion of his residence, Defendant MIYAKE wrote down the reporting person's name as "Kalani Martin" although, upon information and belief, she knew that not to be true. MIYAKE also claimed on the report form that she generated that the reporting person "wants to remain anonymous." Upon information and belief, "Kalani Martin" never made the subject report to MIYAKE, but his name was used falsely by MIYAKE as cover for the true reporting person. MIYAKE knew the true identity of the reporting person. Nonetheless, she treated the report as an anonymous complaint.

Defendant MIYAKE has stated that she acted on the subject report because, inter alia, the Kaua'i County Council Chair, "Kaipo Asing, was asking."

Government Inspectors at the Defendant PLANNING DEPARTMENT are not legally authorized, absent a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, to enter onto private property to investigate an anonymous complaint that someone is renting out a portion of his or her home, especially where renting out a portion of one's home is not illegal.

Next is the smoking gun which we reported on years ago- an email from Iseri showing her to be the one who contemplated and initiated action in the matter before it was ever on Miyake's radar screen- or for that matter anyone in the planning department.

(http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2010/11/pnn-bynum-denies-report-of-illegal-unit.html)

Iseri has repeatedly denied she was in anyway involved in the matter until the planning department came to her with the supposed "violation" which the email disproves.

On or about April 7, 2010, before the Planning Department had instigated any investigation of the "anonymous" complaint, defendant Prosecuting Attorney ISERI-CARVALHO emailed then-Director Ian Costa of the PLANNING DEPARTMENT, stating: "Aloha Ian, We received information to corroborate an anonymous complaint dated March 26,2010 that was sent to the Planning Department and our office, that Councilmember Tim BYNUM was renting out his house, or a portion thereof. Can you let me know if renting out a portion of his residence is illegal given his land status, and what ordinance/statute would he be violating by doing so? Please advise. Much Mahalo, Shay."

Mr. Costa responded to Ms. ISERI-CARVALHO's email, advising her in relevant part: "The CZO really doesn't prohibit renting portions of structures. Even the issue of "lock-outs" is not addressed. The CZO does not dictate where locks are permitted and not permitted (thank goodness!). The issue would be whether the area, in question creates a "multi-family" dwelling. What was permitted is a "single-family" dwelling based on "one kitchen". If a second kitchen (area used for the preparation of food) is present, then a violation would exist for an illegal "multi-family" dwelling unit. I understand Sheila has been assisting and monitoring. Let me know if we can be of farther assistance."

Next is a description of Miyake's tangled web of illegal activity- activity which, she had been repeatedly informed, was anything but lawful.

Despite the Planning Director's correct interpretation of the CZO, i.e. that the allegedly anonymous compliant did not allege any illegal activity, Defendant MIYAKE nonetheless instructed her subordinate, Planning Inspector Patrick Henriques, to enter the BYNUM property and search for potential zoning violations. MIYAKE made no attempt to obtain a search warrant, or even consult with anyone about the necessity of a warrant before entering private property for the purpose of conducting a search for zoning violations.

Prior to searching Plaintiffs property without a warrant, MIYAKE made no attempt to contact BYNUM or anyone else in his household to schedule an inspection or offer him a chance to consent to or refuse the search.

In early April 2010 Defendant MIYAKE and Inspector Henriques entered BYNUM's private property without a warrant, without notice and without permission, went through a gate, walked up a wheelchair ramp in the rear of BYNUM's home, looked in his windows and took photographs of the inside of his

home.

While conducting the warrantless search of BYNUM's home, Defendant MIYAKE allegedly observed a portable rice cooker and a refrigerator in the addition/family room in the family home.

Defendant MIYAKE specifically timed her entry on to Plaintiffs private property to a time and date when she knew Plaintiff would not be home - MIYAKE knew BYNUM would be attending a Kaua'i County Council Meeting at the time.

But later when it was apparent Miyake was in a deep hole she did what most criminals tend to do... keep digging... and digging... and digging...

During a subsequent investigation into the allegations of zoning violations of BYNUM's property by the State Attorney General, Defendant MIYAKE claimed to a Special Deputy Attorney General, Richard Minatoya, that the previous Kaua'i County Attorney, Matthew Pyun had trained her that she could lawfully search a private home without the need for a search warrant and without notice or consent of the property owner, as long as the private home was associated with a use permit.

Upon information and belief, County Attorney Pyun never actually taught MIYAKE that she could conduct a warrantless search of a private residence, without notice to the property owner based solely on the existence of a use permit on the property.

After MIYAKE searched Plaintiffs house and allegedly observed the rice cooker, she consulted with deputy County Attorneys Jung and Dahilig about what she had seen. Each of those deputy County Attorneys advised MIYAKE that she had trespassed onto the BYNUM property, thereby engaging in an illegal warrantless search. One or both of the two deputy County Attorneys also advised MIYAKE that the presence of a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the lawfully permitted family room did not constitute a second "kitchen" within the meaning of the CZO.

Despite having been clearly informed by COUNTY lawyers that BYNUM had not committed a crime by allowing a tenant who allegedly put a rice cooker and a refrigerator in BYNUM's lawfully permitted addition, and despite having been informed by County lawyers that she had illegally trespassed onto the BYNUM property and engaged in an illegal warrantless search, Defendant MIYAKE nonetheless caused an Zoning Notice Violation to be issued to Plaintiff by the COUNTY OF KAUAI.

Now as anyone who has even deal with the planning department on this knows, what constitutes a kitchen often depends on what the planner had for breakfast as much as anything else and Miyake took full advantage of that. But one thing was always clear- to be a separate apartment there has to be a stove installed. The suit goes on to tell the sordid tale.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the KAUAI PLANNING DEPARTMENT maintained an official policy or custom of inadequate training and supervision of its planning inspectors, with respect to what constitutes a "kitchen," the legal standards and requirements for searching private property, and Kaua'i planning inspectors have no uniform or written standards other than the CZO to as to what is or is not a kitchen.

Defendant MIYAKE has stated that "each inspector has his own kingdom" with respect to such determinations. There are no written guidelines for inspectors to follow when interpreting the Kaua'i CZO with respect to the definition of "kitchen" and such determinations are made ad hoc, arbitrarily and, in this case, capriciously and maliciously.

52. On or about April 15, 2010, MIYAKE directed Inspector Henriques to prepare a Zoning Violation Notice ("ZVN") to be issued against BYNUM, using a standard PLANNING DEPARTMENT template.

So, determined to pound the square peg into the round hole, Miyake kept digging, bringing Chair Asing's henchman, County clerk Peter Nakamura, up-to-date.

On or about April 15,2010, MIYAKE emailed the County Clerk, Peter Nakamura, with the subject line that read "4 your eyes only" and attached a copy of the April 15, 2010 ZVN. BYNUM was not informed of the ZVN for nearly one month later on May 12, 2010.

Defendant MIYAKE sent the email copy of the ZVN to the County Clerk, with the intent that it would later be made public and used against BYNUM in the coming 2010 election.

The Planning Department's April 15, 2010 ZVN form, alleged that a zoning violation had been found to "exist" on the Plaintiffs property. Such language, alleging the actual existence of a violation of the CZO, is necessary for such a Zoning Violation Notice to have legal effect — as due process requires the existence of an actual violation before civil or criminal prosecution for a violation of the CZO.

However, in BYNUM's case, the PLANNING DEPARTMENT caused the standard ZVN form originally issued in April 2010 to be altered on or about November 10, 2010 to change the sentence "we have found that a zoning 13 violation exists" to "we have found that a zoning violation may exist." (emphasis added).

At the time of the November 10, 2010 ZVN, there was no probable cause to believe that an actual zoning violation existed on BYNUM's property.

Upon information and belief, the Zoning Notice Violation prepared against BYNUM was the only such notice ever issued by the County of Kaua'i that had alleged a violation based on what "may" exist - instead of what actually did exist.

On or about November 10, 2010, then-Planning Director Ian Costa sent BYNUM a letter stating, "This notice shall supersede our letter dated April 15, 2010," and stating that "we believe ... violations of Chapter 8, Kaua'i County Code may exist."

The November 10, 2010 ZVN did not allege probable cause to believe that either a civil or a criminal zoning violation had occurred.

Defendant MIYAKE then sent the uniquely modified November 10, 2010 Zoning Violation Notice, which claimed only that the Planning Department "believed" that a violation "may" exist to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Prior to the uniquely altered ZVN, the PLANNING DEPARTMENT routinely cc'd ZVN's to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. However, until the BYNUM ZVN, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney has never filed criminal 14 charges until and unless the Planning Department had made a specific request for such criminal charges to be filed.

So Miyake had created quite the legal mess for those around her. And Iseri's First Deputy PA Jake Delaplane was taking no chances on letting himself or his boss be the fall guy, even though Iseri was key in pushing Miyake into the hole in the first place.

In November 2010, Jacob Delaplane, Esq. worked under the supervision and direction of defendant ISERI-CARVALHO at the Kaua'i Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, as a deputy prosecuting attorney. 64. In November 2010, Defendant MIYAKE met with deputy prosecuting Attorney Delaplane to discuss the BYNUM zoning matter, in depth.

Delaplane was an attorney licensed to practice law in Hawai'i at the time he met with MIYAKE.

Delaplane secretly recorded the approximately two-hour long conversation with Defendant MIYAKE.

During the November 2010 meeting with deputy prosecuting attorney Delaplane, MIYAKE informed Delaplane that deputy county attorneys Jung and Dahilig had previously advised MIYAKE that she had illegally trespassed on the BYNUM property, and engaged in an illegal search when she entered Plaintiffs property without a warrant in April 2010 and allegedly saw the portable ricecooker inside the BYNUM family home.

A portable rice-cooker is not an "installed appliance" within the meaning of the Kaua'i CZO.

Miyake, unaware she was being set up by being taped of course, spoke freely with Delaplane who wasn't about to do jail time for anyone- Miyake, or even apparently Iseri, if it came to that.

During the November 2010 meeting with Delaplane, MIYAKE informed Delaplane that deputy county attorneys Jung and Dahilig had previously advised her that the evidence that she had allegedly observed during her warrantless search (a refrigerator and a rice-cooker in the family room addition) did not constitute a second kitchen with "installed appliances" as contemplated by the Kaua'i CZO.

During the surreptitiously recorded meeting between MIYAKE and Delaplane, MIYAKE told Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Delaplane: "It is all political but I will never say on stand that it is political. It will be my demise." The prosecution of BYNUM was indeed for political reasons. MIYAKE also opined on the secretly-recorded tape that "the good guys lost" in the 2010 election. Knowing that a new Planning Director was taking over the Planning Department as a result of the 2010 election, MIYAKE and DOE defendants then arbitrarily and capriciously issued the second ZVN against Plaintiff so that she could "cc" it to the Prosecuting Attorney just before the new Planning Director (i.e., Dahilig - the former County Attorney who had concluded that MIYAKE had trespassed, engaged in an illegal search, and who had questioned whether Plaintiffs home had a second kitchen within the meaning of the Kaua'i CZO) took office.

Finally Miyake fingered "the Godfather" naming the then Council Chair as the one at whose behest she was acting when she issued the violation notice- an action on Asing's part that, if true, would be a violation of the County Code of Ethics and punishable by fines and even jail time described in the county charter.

Mr. Kaipo Asing was the Chair or the County Council at the time the revised ZVN was issued to BYNUM.

After MIYAKE told Delaplane about the advice she had received from deputy county attorneys JUNG and DAHILIG, (regarding trespass, illegal search and the definition of kitchen) and in response to further taped questioning by Delaplane, MIYAKE stated that she and PLANNING director Ian Costa issued the ZCN in November 2010: "Because Kaipo wanted it. Kaipo was asking. And I gotta answer to the Council Chair."

In fact, Defendant MIYAKE had no obligation as a Planning Inspector to "answer" to the Council Chair as to who was charged with zoning violations by the Planning Department. To the extent that MIYAKE based her decision-making as a Planning Inspector on the malicious political wishes of the Kaua'i County Council Chair at the time, her decision to issue the ZVN was arbitrary, capricious and malicious.

The November 2010 ZVN was not a valid ZVN based on admissible evidence of an actual zoning violation, but rather was a uniquely altered document that had no legal effect, did not state probable cause, and simply alleged a "belief' that a violation "may" have existed.

The November 2010 ZVN was issued against legal advice of at least one deputy County Attorney and was instead issued for political reasons at the urging of then Kaua'i County Council chair - as established by MIYAKE's taped admissions to Delaplane.

Meanwhile, back at the OPA ranch Iseri was drunk with, among other things, power. And, she was just getting started. Her dominoes were set up, and it was finally time to knock them over

76. Despite having learned that the two deputy county attorneys who were tasked with advising the PLANNING DEPARTMENT had already advised that there was no probable cause to believe that BYNUM had violated any zoning ordinance, and despite knowing that the alleged rice cooker and refrigerator were only discovered as a result of an illegal warrantless search, and although the November 10, 2010 ZVN did not allege probable cause to believe that either a civil or a criminal zoning violation had occurred - Defendant ISERI-CARVALHO waited approximately one year (until the next election-year cycle) and then filed four criminal zoning charges against BYNUM in the District Court for the 5th Judicial Circuit.

Two of the four alleged criminal acts were based on the alleged presence of a rice-cooker and a refrigerator approximately one year and a half years earlier, and the other two charges were based on the alleged presence of a lock on the door between the addition and the original house - even though Planning Director Costa had already informed Defendant ISERI-CARVALHO that there was no law governing which doors inside a private home could or could not have locks, and even though the subject lock was the same lock that existed at the time the addition was permitted and the certificate of occupancy issued, years earlier.

Oblivious to everything but getting Bynum, Iseri had set the seeds of her own demise because there was "no there there." No matter how hard they squint, when rational people look at a rice cooker none of them are going to see an installed stove.

There was no probable cause for Kaua'i Prosecuting Attorney ISERI-CARVALHO to charge BYNUM with any crimes based on the alleged presence of a rice cooker and refrigerator in his lawfully permitted addition.

ISERI-CARVALHO would not have charged BYNUM with a crime had the Planning Department and MIYAKE not sent an unsolicited copy of the November 2010 ZVN to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Prior to charging BYNUM with four zoning crimes, ISERI-CARVALHO, or Delaplane, acting under her authority, had an investigator interview Victory YOKOTAKE about the BYNUM home. Although YOKOTAKE told the investigator that BYNUM was unaware of the rice-cooker in the addition and that she was welcome to use the BYNUM kitchen (such that she did not need a second kitchen) neither Delaplane nor ISERI-CARVALHO provided that investigator's report to BYNUM or his attorney while ISERI-CARVALHO was prosecuting him, despite written requests for exculpatory information and the constitutional requirement that such material must be provided to a criminal defendant.

During ISERI-CARVALHO' s investigation into whether BYNUM had committed misdemeanors in connection with the rice-cooker and door lock, deputy prosecuting attorney Jake Delaplane ordered Lucas Burns, another deputy prosecuting attorney, to interview Victory Yokotake, the pretext of the interview being that the interview was to assist with the prosecution of the earlier alleged assault against her, but with the real purpose of bolstering ISERI-CARVALHO'S case against BYNUM. The deputy prosecuting attorney was instructed to surreptitiously tape record the interview.

In April 2012, Lucas Burns testified about the unusually aggressive investigation technique involving misleading and surreptitiously recording a victim of an assault with the real intent of extracting from the assault victim, evidence against BYNUM's alleged zoning violations - having no real intent to bolster the assault case in any way.

Iseri had created quite the mess with "Rice Cooker Gate" stories circulating in "the blogs," as this and Joan Conrow's "KauaiEclectic" site are often cumulatively referred to in government circles.

But Iseri had other things to hide and when the budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal year came around things blew up publicly despite her attempts to keep aspects of her department's budget under wraps... not to mention her almost wacky attempts to keep Bynum from questioning her during the yearly departmental budget review hearings.

From January 2012 until approximately May 2012, while the criminal zoning charges were pending against Plaintiff BYNUM, the Kaua'i County Council was simultaneously considering various matters related to the operations and budget of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.

BYNUM had previously been a critic of many of Prosecuting Attorney ISERI-CARVALHO's decisions and he had planned to question ISERI-CARVALHO about her operations and budget as was relevant to the matters pending on the Kaua'i Council's agenda during these council meetings in early 2012.

Plaintiff BYNUM had constitutional rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Hawai'i State Constitution to speak about and debate, as an elected member of the Kaua'i County Council, the operations and budget of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney at official Kaua'i

County Council meetings.

However, on January 19, 2012, while the false criminal charges were pending against BYNUM, prosecuting attorney ISERI-CARVALHO wrote a letter to the entire Kaua'i County Council, on Office of the Prosecuting Attorney letterhead, demanding that BYNUM be recused from County Council meetings involving legislative oversight of the prosecutor's office, while the BYNUM's criminal case was pending.

ISERI-CARVALHO initially stamped this January 19, 2012 letter as "confidential" but later released it to the public and to the mass media and press, with some names redacted.

The January 19, 2012 letter to the Council contained various erroneous statements of law to support ISERI-CARVALHO's demand that BYNUM should be recused from legislative matters concerning the OPA.

Iseri had reached the point where she had lost all contact with reality, living in her own self-constructed World of Shay- aka the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. The letter read like the rantings of a lunatic. The only problem is that the lunatic in this case had- and still has, until at least December 1- the discretionary power to imprison people.

The January 19, 2012 letter also contained numerous statements that are disparaging of Mr. BYNUM's integrity including that "[Councilman BYNUM] has a clear financial interest in the operations of the OPA, as he would directly benefit if the OPA's operations were negatively impacted by any action of the Council. By virtue of being a criminal defendant, he has a vested interest in ensuring that the OPA not operate at peak efficiency" and "BYNUM's paranoid belief that the actions taken by our office were calculated personal attacks against him is without any merit and is completely baseless." ISERI-CARVALHO intentionally withheld from the public or the Council that the Director of the Planning Department had already "cleared" BYNUM of any violation or that BYNUM was innocent unless proven guilty.

90. When ISERI-CARVALHO demanded BYNUM's recusal on the basis that ISERI-CARVALHO had charged BYNUM in a criminal case that was premised on an illegal warrantless search, without probable cause, and on an interpretation of the CZO that was contrary to that stated by then Planning Director Costa and contrary to the advice of deputy county attorneys Jung and Dahilig, she was acting under the color of state law.

BYNUM had a clearly established constitutional and statutory right to fulfill his responsibilities as an elected councilman and to fully participate in 2012 Council hearings related to the operations and budget of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.

ISERI-CARVALHO wrote the January 19, 2012 with the intent of denying BYNUM his rights guaranteed statutes and under the U.S. Constitution and the Hawai'i State Constitution.

ISERI-CARVALHO wrote the January 19,2012 under the color of her authority under state law as an elected public prosecutor.

94. ISERI-CARVALHO wrote the January 19, 2012 with the intent of silencing BYNUM in his capacity as an elected official with respect to the operations and budget of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.

ISERI-CARVALHO's conduct, in writing and publishing the January 19, 2012 letter and her making her comments derogatory comments about BYNUM on the Council floor would have chilled or silenced a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.

Fearful of the Prosecutor's unprincipled ire, and not wanting to risk violating the law related to recusal as it was presented to the Kaua'i County Council by the Prosecuting Attorney, BYMJM ceded to ISERI-CARVALHO's demand for his recusal from the January, 2012 County Council Meeting. Thereafter BYNUM solicited an opinion from the County of Kaua'i Board of Ethics, which later concluded, contrary to the legal assertions made by ISERICARVALHO to the Kaua'i County Council, that BYNUM did not have a conflict of interest such that he should not be recused from fulfilling his duties as an elected councilman with respect to questioning ISERI-CARVALHO, as would any other elected member of the Kaua'i County Council, with respect to the OPA operations and budget.

But it wasn't like Iseri didn't have a couple of loyal supporters on the council: members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i did their best to throw up smoke screens and throw down oil slicks to obscure, slow down and, they hoped, eliminate challenges to Iseri.

On March 14, 2012 and again on March 21, 2012 there was a Special Council meeting item involving the Prosecuting Attorney's request for Council permission to hire a Law Office Assistant. At the opening of the latter meeting ISERI-CARVALHO notified the Council, through counsel, that she would be asking questions of BYNUM before she would agree to testify before the Council. The proposed questions to councilman BYNUM included whether he would "waive [his] rights" and if [he was] aware that "statements that you make can be used against you in the criminal proceeding."

This March 14, 2012 questioning of BYNUM on behalf of ISERI-CARVALHO would have chilled or silenced a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.

During these 2012 County Council meetings ISERI-CARVALHO repeatedly referred to the charges that her Office had filed against BYNUM as the primary basis for removing him from any legislative oversight of the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. In none of these references did ISERI-CARVALHO reference any presumption of innocence or acknowledge the fact of Plaintiff s innocence as established by the legal opinions of deputy County Attorney's Jung and Dahilig.

In addition to the pressures Iseri was maliciously causing in Bynum's public life her actions made a mess of his personal financial affairs when he put his home up for sale.

While all of these matters were happening, BYNUM had listed his home for sale. In the spring of 2012, he entered into a contract for the sale of his home. The sale went into escrow. The buyers, however, became concerned that the house may not have been properly permitted after reading about the prosecution of BYNUM in the local newspaper. In response, the buyers went to the PLANNING DEPARTMENT and inquired whether there were problems with the permitting of the BYNUM property. The representative of the PLANNING DEPARTMENT wrongly and maliciously informed the buyers that the alleged zoning violations would run with the land and transfer to any new owners. The PLANNING DEPARTMENT employee then falsely informed the buyers that they would not be permitted to rent out any rooms in the residence if they bought the home. In response to these, and other false representations from the PLANNING DEPARTMENT, the buyers cancelled (sic) escrow. The house remains unsold. The loss of the sale of the home caused BYNUM to suffer significant financial damages to be proven at trial.

Finally Bynum had his day in court so a judge could ostensibly say to Iseri "what are you, nuckin futz?"

So Oye, Oye. All rise for the courtroom scene- Take One:

On April 5, 2012 a hearing was held in the Fifth Circuit Court, State of Hawai'i, after which the Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe ordered that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney was disqualified from further involvement in the criminal zoning case against BYNUM.

Thereafter, the State of Hawai'i Office of the Attorney General appointed a Special Deputy Attorney General to take over the case from the disqualified Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. The Special Deputy re-investigated the facts and circumstances related to the alleged zoning crimes and very rapidly concluded that there was no provable case against BYNUM.

The Circuit Court, with the agreement and written consent of the Special Deputy Attorney General, dismissed the entire criminal case against BYNUM with prejudice.

Thereafter, First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Delaplane, working under the authority of ISERI-CARVALHO told the local newspaper reporter that the dismissal did not equate to innocence.

Iseri is opposed by Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar in the November 6 election.

HUNG UP?

HUNG UP?: Getting telephone polled (and everyone knows how painful that can be, as Steve Allen used to say) used to be a rare event. While some were annoyed at having to answer questions from a stranger at dinner time, more often "poll-ees" felt that it was so out of the ordinary that they might as well thoughtfully answer the "poll-ers'" questions.

But this year, with the ubiquitous use of the "robo-call"- those pre-recorded "push '1' if you plan to vote for candidate 'X'" calls- we knew it couldn't just be our imagination that the phone seems to ring with these things once a day and twice on Sunday.

We've actually answered at least a half a dozen of theses things this year and screened out another large handful- usually with an "egad, not again" attitude- more than the total number we've ever received over the years.

We'd gotten a strange feeling that these robo-calls- a term that some consider pejorative even though it's the common parlance for any pre-recorded call- were yielding bogus results for a long time, for many reasons.

But the absurdly counter-intuitive results of a "Civil Beat (CB)" poll yesterday that has Tulsi Gabbard taking a sudden and stunning 49%-29% lead over Mufi Hannemann in the 2nd U.S. Congressional District race, all but confirms our suspicions... especially coming, as it does, on the heels of a CB-reported tie a few weeks back and a 10 point lead by Hannemann in a "Hawai`i News Now/Star Advertiser HNN/SA" poll a week before.

Even with the respective "margins of error" a simply statistical explanation doesn't cut it. There has to be something else going on here.

And if our experiences, along with those of some of our Facebook "friends," is any indication it is the robo-calls themselves that provide an explanation.

First of all it appears that only those with a "land-line" have been robo-called. Those with cell phones need not apply. Some say that this discriminates against younger and poorer voters being included but no matter what demographic groups it favors, the results are going to be skewed one way or another.

It may be simply the annoyance factor that causes people to auto-hang-up on auto-calls.

We've developed a habit of doing just that. Whether it's the recent polling or other calls of late, as soon as it becomes apparent that the call is a recording, we hang up,`` having developed the attitude that if it's not important enough for them to call personally it's not important enough for us to answer.

Plus of course there is the modern phenomena of screening calls based on caller ID. This may vary with how busy one is at the moment but if we're busy in the kitchen and an unknown mainland number comes up, we're a whole lot less likely to answer it- and even less so if the caller's number and name are blocked.

We basically asked our Facebook "friends" if they had landlines or cells, how many calls they got and whether the calls were "live or Memorex" ("taped," for all you youngsters) as well as how the number of calls compared to past years.

What we found is that that we're not alone in our response to robo-calls or "touch-tone polling" as Civil Beat would prefer they be referred to. Here are some of the responses left on on our Facebook page (all "Sic"):

- I have been getting at least 3 to 4 a week on land line. I hang up or don't take calls but then they go to message and I still have to deal with them. Most of them come in early evening. They are from everywhere; local, state, fed.

- I think I've probably gotten about 3 in the last month. Not sure. I hang up as soon as I realize its a computer. Been getting a few voice mails asking me to vote for their candidate

-1) hangup on robo-calls, 2) Ask any live person who commissioned the poll, have yet to get an answer and hang-up, 3) if they tell me who commissioned the poll I throw flak at the pollster.

- I have had more survey calls than ever before. Maybe a total of six, four were robo calls. Two were definite push polls, maybe three. All calls were to a land line. Only screened one that I did not take, a repeat call from one surveyor I hung up on for being a push poll. One seemed pointed at prosecutor office, all others combined house and senate. One earlier included county council questions.

In response to that last one, probably because it wasn't clear, candidate for Prosecuting Attorney Justin Kollar responded, "Just so everyone knows, my campaign has done no robocalling. ZERO."

That concurs with a report from Joan Conrow- one that quite a few others have independently confirmed for us- that described what could only be called a "push poll" and seemed to be from Kollar's opponent, incumbent Shaylene Iseri Carvalho.

Our favorite questions from that Iseri push poll was "do you read the blogs?" quite obviously because she's in trouble if they do.

Oh, and here's one response we got via email,

I've had about the same experience you have Andy, though far more than a half dozen, with many calls being from out of the area and automated, a few were actual live interview calls. Some are obviously partisan, others I could not tell who was sponsoring them. I screened one caller, Bob Marx, as noted on my caller ID, and they called back 4 times within a couple of hours. They have all been on my land line, apparently gotten from the phone book. They are a nuisance.

But though this is a small sampling and of course is not a "scientific poll" it is significant in that everyone who responded did so with frustration- oh, all right call it anger- over robo-calls. Remember they don't seem to object to getting polling calls, just that they were the recorded type.

One factor we haven’t heard mentioned is the relative difficulty of the whole "touch tone call" phenomena. Although most of us are used to it by now, no one likes it. Humorists and comedians have had a field day with them for more than a decade now.

Arguably, once you get past the usual desire to talk to a live person- and the fact that that option either doesn't seem to be on the list or is the last one of 10 choices (and is never "0")- the worst part is trying to find the right button on these telephones that no longer have a separate receiver and number pad, but instead have the keypad right next to where you talk and listen so that you have to keep taking the phone away from your head to push the right button and bringing it back to your ear... until your arms (or ear) starts to fall off.

And boy are you in trouble if you didn't catch the first couple of selections of what has become a long, bewildering set of choices. Are you really going to have the machine read the selections again? Or are you more likely to just push any button just to get the thing over with?

And then there's the regular poll that turns into a push poll. Although there's been some argument- usually from the people who run them- that they aren't push polls for one double-talking reason or another, everyone knows them when they hear them.

And they've heard quite a few this year.

Our favorite was one where, five minutes in, the "caller" asks a series of questions beginning with "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Mufi if you knew that he" followed by some horrendous anecdotal tale of apparent avarice or corruption. One question included the words "Pearl Harbor" and "Senator Inouye" and if you weren’t paying close attention you might get the impression that Mufi was at the controls of a Japanese Zero honing in on the 442nd.

Another negative of robo-calls is the impatience factor with a long list of choices. You just know that 10 minutes into a call that had asked for "five minutes of your time" people are starting to push "1" or "2" just to make the process go faster, thinking they already have 10 minutes invested so they don't want to hang up now, they just want it to be over.

Whether these things we do make sense or not isn't important- it's simply what we do without really thinking about it.

Then of course there's the one where the choices change and they type of question remains the same. After a list of four or five questions with the same two possible answers, all of a sudden you realize there are now seven different choices and you just pushed "1" only because that was the one you had been pushing on similar questions.

But the big question here is, assuming that robo-calls give skewed data, why would it favor Tulsi over Mufi?

Well, let's look at those specifics.

Mufi is not exactly the kind of candidate that makes people excited about his candidacy. First of all he's a conservative candidate in what has been arguably described as "the most liberal district in the country." And he's running in a Democratic primary where he started with a big lead without any real progressive oppositions.

The Democratic base had been craving a candidate they could get excited about. Former Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser apparently chose not to run for the post he ran for some years back and many suspect it was because of the daunting task of raising enough money to take on the presumed favorite, Hannemann. And he had name recognition after also running for lt. governor last year whereas Gabbard has never run for statewide office before, just state representative and Honolulu county council.

Enter Tulsi. Then enter lots of money- much of it from the mainland- to publicize her status as a "born-again lefty."

Even though anywhere else he'd be a Republican, Mufi's support has come from the Democratic "machine" who are supporting him as the "establishment" candidate. Many have been supporting him simply because of name recognition.

But as Gabbard started to raise money and get her name out there she negated much of that and now has become the "go to" candidate who, although they were probably going to vote for Mufi before, has now excited those who were looking for a "progressive alternative."

And make no mistake about it- the Democratic progressives have become excited having long "got over" her former radical right wing stance on marriage rights and other issues.

Those are the people who would be more likely to stay on the phone to get their "choice" registered with the thought that polls numbers create the bandwagon effect.

No one's getting "excited" over the prospect of Congressman Hannemann... except maybe for those who expect a federal contract from the well "know pay-to-play" pol.

And don't forget about the "Mufi haters." Hannemann has tremendous negatives with high "dislike" numbers that he's generated over the years. He's been characterized, if not caricatured, as having a "bullying" style and has been accused of negative- even allegedly racist- campaigning, most recently in his run for governor where he lost to Neil Abercrombie two years ago.

Not too many Mufi Mavens are going to stay on the phone through a robo-call to register their support for him. As a matter of fact, we'd venture to say most of his supporters think it's "in the bag" already- don't forget, this poll wasn't out at the time.

All that could lead to a situation where those most likely to stay through a recorded call- even though they hate robo-calls- would be Gabbard supporters whereas the least likely would be Hannemann supporters.

And for what it's worth, it's a lot easier to hang up on a recording than a person, especially in the "Aloha State" so there's a natural skewing at the most basic level.

We really feel sorry for our friend Mike Levine whose job at Civil Beat was to try to explain how such an anomaly could possibly be valid. He actually did a good job of it and you come away thinking "well, it could happen."

But, upon reflection, no- it couldn't happen. A 30 point difference in two almost simultaneous polls cannot be reasoned away even with the old standby of "it's just snapshot."

When you look at the difference between the HNN/SA and CB polls, the main thing- maybe the only thing- that sticks out is the method of gathering the information. And if it's the method that's in question and one candidate is roundly not just disliked but actively hated then, as most critical thinkers and rational people will tell you, the likely answer is going to be the correct one- that something is kapakahi with the robo-call methodology.

If Tulsi Gabbard beats Mufi Hannemann by 20 points this Saturday we'll eat this keyboard. Because it would be easier to ingest a pound of plastic and metal than it would to swallow the validity of these robo-calls.

YOUR WRONG TO VOTE

YOUR WRONG TO VOTE: Age has benefits. The "been there done that" factor can halve research time.

Unfortunately when combined with an inevitable senior moment it can lead to misinformation. That's what led us to wrongly tell our readers that the race for prosecuting attorney would be decided on August 11 because only two people are running and one, by definition, is bound to get "50% plus 1."

That's how it has been in every election for prosecuting attorney (PA) on Kaua`i. But now for the first time a charter amendment that was passed by voters in 2008 will take effect for the PA election. And of course, being Kaua`i, it is required that something about it be absurd so the provision essentially says that even though there are only two candidates they will appear on "the first nonpartisan election" ballot for no particular reason other than that is the way the provision was written.

The impetus for the amendment was the 2006 election where, in what is commonly called the "primary" election, then-Mayor Bryan Baptiste ran for reelection and got 50% plus exactly four votes, beating out four opponents in what turned out to be the closest election in Kaua`i history.

It's understandable that with five candidates people just didn't show up for the primaries thinking no one would get the "50% plus 1" needed to be elected outright, without the top two going on to the November election.

They felt cheated when Baptiste got 8,173 votes and chief challenger, former Councilmember Jesse Fukushima came in with 4,725 votes, because when the other three- John Hoff, Bruce Pleas and Janee Taylor- got 1,984, 1,083 and 377 respectively it added up to 8169 votes for the others... four votes shy of the amount that would have prompted a November showdown between Baptiste and Fukushima.

It seemed like a no-brainer- change the charter so that no matter what the vote totals were,d the top two finishers in the primary would meet in November.

So the attorneys (some hired specifically to make sure the amendment did what the charter review commission wanted it to do) worded the amendment this way:

Article I The County And Its Government
Section 1.03. County Elections.
(C)1. Offices of the Mayor, Prosecuting Attorney and Council members to be elected by districts, if any. In the case of the offices of mayor, prosecuting attorney, or any council members to be elected by districts, the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes for these offices in the first nonpartisan election shall be placed on the ballot for the second nonpartisan election. However, if there is only one candidate for each of said offices, such candidate shall be elected. (Amended 2008)

There's one problem with that. It works fine when there are three or more candidates because no matter what "the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes" go on to November.

But the current charter failed to recognize what would happen if there are only two candidates. There are two choices on what the new law could and should do in that case. It could declare that the election- the one that actually elects the candidate- be held during "the first nonpartisan election," unless there is an actual tie- exactly 50% for each in which case they'd go on to November. Or the names could be left off the "primary" ballot- since it's just a waste of paper and ink since it won't determine anything anyway- and let the actual election to be held in November.

But, this being Kaua`i, a third choice was selected and now, for no particular reason, the two candidates for PA- incumbent Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho and challenger Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar- will appear on the ballot in both August and September.

Which means that there are no meaningful Kaua`i-only, non-partisan races whatsoever on the ballot in August. Although there are partisan Democratic primary elections for US senate and house of representatives, the races for council and prosecuting attorney will appear on the ballot even though the results are moot and all will go on to November.

The same will be true for any future mayoral election and for council races if districting is ever implemented.

Kaua`i has always been "A Separate Kingdom" and, when it comes to writing our laws, a separate reality too.

(PNN) CHIEF’S WIFE SAYS PERRY OFFERED "SETTLEMENT" BY MAYOR CARVALHO AT MONDAY MEETING

CHIEF’S WIFE SAYS PERRY OFFERED "SETTLEMENT" BY MAYOR CARVALHO AT MONDAY MEETING

(PNN) -- Kaua`i Police Chief Darryl Perry was "offered a settlement" by Mayor Bernard Carvalho at a meeting Monday night, Perry's wife Sollette told the county council Wednesday (2/29) evening.

In testimony before the council she said that there was a settlement discussion at the meeting, which was attended members of the police commission, but before she could give details she was interrupted by County Attorney Al Castillo who had previously tried to stop her testimony on two other occasions.*

After previously denying Castillo's demands Council Chair Jay Furfaro did stop Mrs. Perry's testimony at that point saying he would "not allow personnel issues to be raised" and that "no names of employees" were to be spoken although Mrs. Perry had previously named others.

Mrs Perry also demanded that the council launch an investigation under County Charter Section 3.17 and hire special counsel to do so.

After citing her extensive experience in "human resources" Mrs. Perry described the events of the last month saying Chief Perry was originally called to Carvalho's office on January 30 on what he thought was another matter.

There, Mrs. Perry said, the Chief was told that although he was "not being investigated" and was "expected to carry out his duties" when he returned to work, he was being "suspended as Chief of Police for seven days. "

Mrs. Perry said that at the meeting her husband was "shown a letter" from an employee complaining of a "hostile work environment" although he was not given a copy. She said the letter named Assistant Chiefs Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan as subjects of the complaint.

She said that this meeting was attended by Heu, Kollar and one other Carvalho aide.

The evening after the meeting at 8 p.m. she said the Chief got a call from Heu telling him he was to "stand by for a meeting in the morning" but to "avoid (the complainant) at all costs.

"For a month the Chief has been under attack" Mrs. Perry told council members saying that there was "nothing in the county charter that gives the mayor the power to suspend the chief."

Mrs. Perry stated that, when Chief Perry did return to work, as has been reported, Acting Assistant Chief Mark Begley refused three direct orders from Perry requesting Perry's gun, badge and access to his office in what she called "an act of grave insubordination... under directions from the mayor."

She added that current Acting Chief Michael Contrades had also received a communication from Heu on behalf of the mayor ordering Contrades to withhold the chief's equipment.

She told the council she didn’t see the authority to suspend the chief as resting with the mayor but rather that "the (police) commission should direct the chief."

Mrs. Perry testified just before the council went into a previously scheduled executive session regarding the matter. Chair Furfaro said that she had "called in" to request to testify before the session and was told to come in and do so.

For background on this story see previous posts at:

http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/ha-cha-cha-cha-cha.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/im-afraid-i-cant-do-that-dave.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/legally-schmegally.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/assorted-secret-valentines.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/presumptuous-assumptions.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-why-why-delilah.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/horsesht-of-different-color.html
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/02/well-i-wonder-wonder-wonder-wonder-who.html

Correction: Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar did not attend Monday's "settlement" meeting between suspended Police Chief Darryl Perry and Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. The meeting was, according to sources, attended by some members of the police commission. The post has been corrected.

POLITICAL THEATER ON RYE... WITH MUSTARD PLEASE

POLITICAL THEATER ON RYE... WITH MUSTARD PLEASE: What with all the fun and games of the Iseri-Bynum circus of the absurd, the status and functionality of the Victim-Witness Program (VWP), the meat of the recent political sandwich, hasn't really received much press.

As we reported two weeks ago (January 12) according to a scathing letter to the Kaua`i County Council by Erin Wilson, a terminated Victim-Witness Counselor at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA, the program is now dysfunctional due to the requirement that all communications with outside agencies and the world in general be channeled through Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, the lack of communications between those performing VWP services and many other issues such as the 17 new faces at the OPA since Iseri came into office.

According to the agenda for last Thursday's council meeting, Council Vice Chair JoAnn Yukimura asked Iseri to come before the council to discuss "the status of the Victim-Witness Program and OPA." And when Councilmember Tim Bynum recused himself due to Iseri's prosecution of him for alleged zoning violations at his home- as we detailed yesterday- Yukimura took over the questioning that, according to Bynum, had been suspended in 2009 when then Chair Kaipo Asing stopped it.

But not before Iseri, trying to direct the show, dragged up her whole department to blow smoke up everyone's butts after demanding that Wilson be questioned, spurring Chair Jay Furfaro to remind her that he was the one running the show.

Instead Yukimura asked for current VWP employee Dianne Gauspohl-White to come up to tesfy. She pretty much backed up most of Wilson's complaints although saying she could only speak from her perspective.

At first Yukimura's questioning elicited mostly red-faced rage, bluster and misdirection on Iseri's part, complaining how she and her staff had to take valuable time to present information they had supposedly already presented.

But after Iseri's right hand man First Deputy Prosecutor Jake DelaPlane- who continually throughout the session pulled her butt out of the sling she had created through her own belligerence- did a PowerPoint presentation with lots of numbers and statistics but almost nothing on the VWP, the questioning of Iseri by Yukimura began, mostly based on Wilson's allegations.

Things were going along swimmingly (not) with Iseri parrying Yukimura's questions with non-responsive "answers" and continual reminders that she had already presented the requested material, when Yukimura finally asked the right questions and hit a jackpot of an answer.

"The Victim Witness Program no longer exists" Iseri told a stunned council.

Seems that Iseri has instituted a program called "vertical prosecution." Formerly deputy prosecutors were assigned to individual courts, not to individual cases. That meant that many times an attorney got the case for the first time when he showed up to court after a case had, for example, been moved from district to circuit court or from the court of one judge to another.

"Vertical prosecution" (VP) is a system where each case is assigned to one attorney who takes it from beginning to end, usually sorted by subject matter- drugs, violent crime, domestic, white collar crime etc.- supposedly creating attorneys with expertise in a certain area.

It actually sounds like a good and long overdue practice.

Under VP each individual attorney has a "team" assigned to him or her- a law clerk, and now, a Victim-Witness (VW) counselor.

And in Iseri's office that apparently has come to mean that there's no cross communication anymore between the various VW employees.

According to White and Wilson, VW employees are now tasked by the attorney who almost exclusively assigns them tasks like calling specific victims and witnesses to let them know about court dates, changes in case status and those kinds of things.

Apparently the actual "counseling" part has fallen through the cracks and not only that but the only victims and witnesses contacted by the counselors are those the attorney on the team tells them to call- and then only to communicate matters regarding the case status.

It used to be that VW employees met every month, traveled to conferences and did a lot of evaluation of whether and how services were being delivered to VWs. But that is a thing of the past with VP where counselors are now "team members" whose actions are dictated by either the attorneys in charge of the team or Iseri herself.

Whereas vertical integration is growing in popularity in the offices of prosecutors and district attorneys across the country- and, according to Councilmember and Iseri ally Mel Rapozo, is by far the most popular management scheme- robust victim witness counseling can wind up being be sacrificed.

Especially if a megalomaniacal, puerile, petty, vindictive, ego-driven prosecutor is the one running the show.

The rest of Yukimura's questioning revealed that, despite requests from the council that statistics and information be presented in an intelligible manner and one that addresses questions the council has- like how all the monies from the various VW programs from the county state and federal governments are actually spent- they are embedded in spread sheets and long narratives where there's little or no possibility of extracting the pertinent information.

It all ended up with DelaPlane- who had taken over much of the question-answering after Iseri's patented self-righteous, rage-filled and spittle-spewing attacks on the questions and questioner became self-defeating- promising to put the statistics in meaningful formats for the new budget... and, importantly, to provide the evaluation forms that victims and witnesses have filled out for those entities providing the grants, which had never been provided to the council previous to the request.

We can expect a repeat performance during the budget hearings starting in March when the OPA presents its budget. But more importantly we just may get some of the issues aired during this year's election campaign where current Deputy County Attorney for the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), Justin Kollar, is challenging Iseri for the Prosecutor's job.

Iseri won her first and only term as prosecutor in 2008 running unopposed, leaving her position on the county council after four years there.

Although the community has suffered in all this, personally we can't be too distressed with the Bynum matter, the victim witness program questions and other brewing debacles promise that this summer will be anything but a dull one in this space.

So thank you Shay- you're a columnist's dream. So much so that we're torn between supporting Justin for the sake of the community or you for being the gift that keeps on giving.

(PNN) PROSECUTOR ISERI UNDER FIRE FOR MISMANAGEMENT AND MALTREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM

(PNN) PROSECUTOR ISERI UNDER FIRE FOR MISMANAGEMENT AND MALTREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF VICTIM WITNESS PROGRAM; LETTER TO COUNCIL FROM LAID-OFF COUNSELOR CHARGES PROGRAM IS INEFFECTIVE, IN DISARRAY

(PNN) 17.

That's the answer usually given by former and current employees at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) to many of the questions as to why there are so many charges of mismanagement and ill-treatment of employees in Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's office.

That's because 17 is the number of "Deputy Attorneys who had been hired and either terminated or left on their own accord from OPA" according to a scathing letter to the Kaua`i County Council by Erin Wilson, a former Victim Witness Counselor at the OPA.

Wilson's letter- which is published here in full (below at the end of this article)- was submitted as testimony on a communication at yesterday's (January 11, 2012) council meeting. The communication asked for Iseri to come before the council to discuss "the status of the Victim Witness Program and Office of the Prosecuting Attorney."

The matter was deferred for two weeks until January 25 however because Iseri submitted a letter saying she was "sick," according to Council Chair Jay Furfaro.

The issues Iseri will discuss in two weeks, according to the agenda, include:

1) Case backlog caused by furloughs.
2) Funding - how utilized and whether sufficient to address concerns.
3) Levels of staffing and level of service for the Victim Witness program.
4) Caseload open, closed and pending

The issue dates back to May 6, 2009 according to Councilmember Tim Bynum when Iseri was summoned to appear before the council to answer the same questions but never did because, Bynum said the minutes of that meeting show, he was cut off from his line of questioning by then Council Chair Kaipo Asing.

Asing claimed Bynum's questioning of Iseri was a Sunshine (open meetings) Law violation because it was off the subject of the agenda. However according to Bynum, more than a year later the Office of Information Practices (OIP), which oversees the Sunshine Law, ruled his line of questioning did not violate the law.

Bynum famously feuded with Asing over many matters of council process and rules during Asing's tenure and is currently involved in a well-known, long-standing feud with Iseri dating back to her days on the council with Bynum.

Until yesterday the latest chapter in the conflict has been what Bynum claims is his malicious, first-of-its-kind prosecution by Iseri for a permitting violation, apparently spurred by Bynum having had a rice cooker in a family room of his home which, Iseri claims, is a zoning violation because technically, with the presence of a sink, it created a unpermitted separate living unit.

Wilson spoke of the number "17" by saying:

After asking many employees at OPA why the delay on the above referenced case and others I had been assigned to, I was consistently referred to one number...17. This number was significant because there had been 17 Deputy Attorneys who had been hired and either terminated or left on their own accord from OPA. 17 was a significant number because the prosecutor’s office is a relatively small office to begin with. 17 was a significant number because all of these 17 former employees had left the office since the current OPA Leadership was elected into office. Most importantly, 17 was a significant number because it answered some of my questions about why a large backlog of cases had either sat for long periods of time without victims being contacted, defendants being indicted, or passed on from deputy to deputy through the revolving door at OPA.

Some of the allegations in Wilson's letter are that:

- NOTHING could be done without the direct approval and oversight of the elected prosecutor. In fact, office staff received an email from the Prosecutor’s Office leadership, stating that staff was not to send emails to any outside agencies unless discussed with the OPA leadership prior to sending. Furthermore, OPA Leadership asked to be cc’ed on all other emails to outside agencies.

- The process by which OPA would receive completed investigations and then assigned to the appropriate Deputy and Victim Witness Counselor was ambiguous. The time frame with which the assignment would take place was even more vague and varied week to week. Sometimes cases would be reviewed by the Prosecutor and assigned to a Deputy Attorney and Victim Witness Counselor right away. Other times, as I found out with my caseload, would take months upon months before even being assigned to a Deputy or Counselor for any action to be taken.

- In a letter to County Council dated January 19, 2011 regarding furloughs, the Elected Prosecutor, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, states that as a result of furloughs,

'OPA, the sole agency to file the criminal documents with the court and/or prepare for hearings, wasn’t able to accomplish its duties in a number of cases because there was insufficient staff to prepare them in an expedited and timely manner.'

I beg to differ. I would suggest instead, it is the constant revolving door of employees that has caused a tremendous backlog of cases at OPA. Even the office letterhead is constantly changing and currently reflects that about half of the Deputies that were listed on the above referenced letter, dated January 19th, 2011, have left OPA within the past year. All, I would suggest, to the detriment of Kauaiian families and community.

- The elected prosecutor demoted the former Victim Witness Director, Diana Gausepohl-White and effectively eliminated the Director position altogether. What did this mean for the Victim Witness program? It meant that our Victim Witness program no longer had a leader in Victim Witness services to provide oversight of day to day operations and management of the program. It also resulted in drastic changes in the scope of services that Victim Witness Counselors were allowed to offer... After the Victim Witness Director position was eliminated, these components of our comprehensive program diminished or ceased to exist.

- The current OPA Leadership also promotes the perception that Victim Witness Counselors have little importance within the office and are perceived as such by many of the attorneys, clerks, and other staff at OPA.

- I am no longer employed with the Prosecutor’s Office as I was informed on November 9th that I was being laid off and my position as Victim Witness Counselor was being eliminated from the office due to “lack of work”. This “lack of work” described in the letter that OPA gave me is in stark contrast to the much needed Victim Witness Counselor that the elected prosecutor requested monies for, in her letter (just a few months ago) to County Council dated June 13th, 2011. Despite this “lack of work” the office has hired several people including a Receptionist, a Process Server, two (2) Law Clerks, and a Law Office Assistant position which was created for the previous Secretary--all since my last day of employment, November 23rd, 2011. Furthermore, OPA has done nothing to preserve my employment despite that the County of Kauai Employee Handbook (page 17) Layoff Policy states that they will give 90 days’ notice prior to instilling a Reduction in Workforce or Layoff. I am certain that the victims who call OPA on a daily basis requesting an update on their case status or the victims of the most recent surge of crime on Kauai, could have used the services I provided as a Victim Witness Counselor.

At yesterday's meeting, while Bynum was trying to give the history of the issues being aired before the council and the Asing/Sunshine Law/OIP matter, Councilperson Mel Rapozo, famously an extremely close ally and employee of Iseri's, tried to stop Bynum from speaking by claiming the statement he was making violated the Sunshine Law, interrupting Bynum twice and appealing to Furfaro to stop Bynum.

After getting huffy at the notion that he was being accused of ducking the issue- even though Bynum said no such thing- Furfaro allowed Bynum to finish his statement.

Rapozo serves summonses for Iseri's office despite a ban on councilmembers doing more than $500 worth of work for the county. He and Iseri have thus far successfully circumvented the provision by breaking the contracts up into parcels of less than $500 each and also have claimed that Rapozo is the only one on the island who can do the work based on the fact that no one else bid on it.

Part of the intent of the law is to make sure that councilmembers cannot use their power to intimidate others from bidding on a contract upon which the councilmember is bidding.

Council Vice Chair JoAnn Yukimura- who sent the communication to the council requesting Iseri's presence- referred to Wilson's letter and asked that staff contact former Victim Witness Director, Diana Gausepohl-White and request that she be present to testify at the January 25 meeting.

Iseri is up for reelection this year and will face current Deputy County Attorney with the Kaua`i Police Department, Justin Kollar.

-------

Erin Wilson's letter to the Kaua`i County Council


Date: January 10, 2012

To: Jay Furfaro, Chair
Joann Yukimura, Vice Chair
Tim Bynum
Dicky Chang
KipuKai Kuali’i
Mel Rapozo
Nadine Nakamura

From: Erin Wilson, Former Victim Witness Counselor at OPA
Re: Council Meeting Agenda Item C 2012-08

First of all let me say thank you for your time and providing an opportunity for public comment on the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) and Victim Witness Program (VWP) at your meeting today. I believe my circumstance is unique to any other and I appreciate the opportunity to share some of my experiences with you in hopes that you will consider what I have to say as an opportunity to improve services at OPA and the Victim Witness Program.

I am a single mom who moved to Kauai in August 2011 from Colorado with my 6 year old son because I was offered a position as a Victim Witness Counselor at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. This was in my mind, a dream job, where I could use my passion for helping others, advocating for victims of crime. Within a few days of working, I was assigned to work on the most serious of crimes including murder, negligent homicide, assault, robbery, theft, etc. In this position, my responsibilities included making contact with victims to find out how they were coping, finding out what their needs are, helping victims apply for Crime Victim Compensation, finding local resources, getting victims registered for SAVIN (a victim notification system), and let victims know about other civil remedies. Most importantly, my job was to listen to our victims.

I quickly learned at OPA that NOTHING could be done without the direct approval and oversight of the elected prosecutor. In fact, office staff received an email from the Prosecutor’s Office leadership, stating that staff was not to send emails to any outside agencies unless discussed with the OPA leadership prior to sending. Furthermore, OPA Leadership asked to be cc’ed on all other emails to outside agencies. I was very surprised by this as I had not worked in such an environment where communication with related agencies (agencies we interface with) was restricted in such a manner.

The process by which OPA would receive completed investigations and then assigned to the appropriate Deputy and Victim Witness Counselor was ambiguous. The time frame with which the assignment would take place was even more vague and varied week to week. Sometimes cases would be reviewed by the Prosecutor and assigned to a Deputy Attorney and Victim Witness Counselor right away. Other times, as I found out with my caseload, would take months upon months before even being assigned to a Deputy or Counselor for any action to be taken.

In one case that was assigned to me, there were several victims of a violent crime. Prior to making initial contact with the victims, I reviewed the police reports so as to be fully prepared when I contacted the victims and their families, being fully aware of what happened. What I was unable to prepare for was the anger and frustration these families felt when I met with them the first time in our office and learned that after 17 months, I was the first person to contact them from the Prosecutor's Office. In those 17 months, none of the victims or their families had been contacted by anyone at the Prosecutor’s office to offer condolences (there had been a death resulting from the crime) or inform the families about their rights to Victim Witness services, Crime Victim Compensation, or any other related community services that they were entitled to. It was not that the Deputies or Victim Witness Counselors were not working hard on their caseloads, but rather, the victims’ receipt of services could have occurred much earlier in this case and many others, had the case(s) been assigned by OPA Leadership in a timelier manner. Many of the cases I came across had sat waiting for screening and prosecution or declination for long periods of time. Cases had sat for so long that in some situations, the statute of limitations had run out on certain counts of crimes and the defendants could no longer be charged, leaving victims helpless.

After asking many employees at OPA why the delay on the above referenced case and others I had been assigned to, I was consistently referred to one number...17. This number was significant because there had been 17 Deputy Attorneys who had been hired and either terminated or left on their own accord from OPA. 17 was a significant number because the prosecutor’s office is a relatively small office to begin with. 17 was a significant number because all of these 17 former employees had left the office since the current OPA Leadership was elected into office. Most importantly, 17 was a significant number because it answered some of my questions about why a large backlog of cases had either sat for long periods of time without victims being contacted, defendants being indicted, or passed on from deputy to deputy through the revolving door at OPA.

In a letter to County Council dated January 19, 2011 regarding furloughs, the Elected Prosecutor, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, states that as a result of furloughs,

“OPA, the sole agency to file the criminal documents with the court and/or prepare for hearings, wasn’t able to accomplish its duties in a number of cases because there was insufficient staff to prepare them in an expedited and timely manner.”

I beg to differ. I would suggest instead, it is the constant revolving door of employees that has caused a tremendous backlog of cases at OPA. Even the office letterhead is constantly changing and currently reflects that about half of the Deputies that were listed on the above referenced letter, dated January 19th, 2011, have left OPA within the past year. All, I would suggest, to the detriment of Kauaiian families and community.

There was another significant factor that limited the scope of Victim Witness Services at OPA. The elected prosecutor demoted the former Victim Witness Director, Diana Gausepohl-White and effectively eliminated the Director position altogether. What did this mean for the Victim Witness program? It meant that our Victim Witness program no longer had a leader in Victim Witness services to provide oversight of day to day operations and management of the program. It also resulted in drastic changes in the scope of services that Victim Witness Counselors were allowed to offer. For example, before the Director position was eliminated, the VWP offered services such as Outreach programs, crime scene support upon request, alliances with multiple community agencies. After the Victim Witness Director position was eliminated, these components of our comprehensive program diminished or ceased to exist. Another downfall to eliminating the Director position was the inability to maintain relationships with agencies that the VWP interfaces with on Kauai, in the state of Hawaii (ex. Victim Witness Coordinator meetings) as well as nationwide organizations such as National Organization for Victim Advocacy (NOVA). These former relationships made our Victim Witness program at the Prosecutor’s Office stand out among others in the Pacific region.

Losing the Victim Witness Director at OPA, we also lost accountability for an equitable distribution of workloads among the Counselors. For example, each Counselor is assigned to certain types of cases such as Property, Crimes Against Persons, Firearms, etc. without regard to the intensity of the case or the needs of the victims and witnesses. The current OPA Leadership also promotes the perception that Victim Witness Counselors have little importance within the office and are perceived as such by many of the attorneys, clerks, and other staff at OPA. For example, in one conversation I had with a Deputy Attorney at OPA, two Victim Witness Counselors were referred to as “worthless.” In a separate conversation I had with a Prosecutor, it was stated that ‘Victim Witness Counselors were not needed because deputy attorney’s already make contact with their victims, without the help of a Counselor.’ Based on my experience working at OPA, I disagree. Furthermore, the notion that the Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys have the same job responsibilities as a Victim Witness Counselor, is misleading.

Other responsibilities of the Victim Witness Director that also took a backseat included the onboarding of new Counselors, ongoing training of new skills, knowledge of trends in the field, and ensuring that advocates took turns attending national conferences.
I am no longer employed with the Prosecutor’s Office as I was informed on November 9th that I was being laid off and my position as Victim Witness Counselor was being eliminated from the office due to “lack of work”. This “lack of work” described in the letter that OPA gave me is in stark contrast to the much needed Victim Witness Counselor that the elected prosecutor requested monies for, in her letter (just a few months ago) to County Council dated June 13th, 2011. Despite this “lack of work” the office has hired several people including a Receptionist, a Process Server, two (2) Law Clerks, and a Law Office Assistant position which was created for the previous Secretary--all since my last day of employment, November 23rd, 2011. Furthermore, OPA has done nothing to preserve my employment despite that the County of Kauai Employee Handbook (page 17) Layoff Policy states that they will give 90 days’ notice prior to instilling a Reduction in Workforce or Layoff. I am certain that the victims who call OPA on a daily basis requesting an update on their case status or the victims of the most recent surge of crime on Kauai, could have used the services I provided as a Victim Witness Counselor.

I request of you today, to re-evaluate the Victim Witness Program and consider that victims are not being served in this community in the full scope that they should be served, due to the changes and restraints that the elected prosecutor is putting on the Counselor’s abilities to communicate with local agencies and organizations, conduct outreach to victims, and serving victims in a timely manner through the prosecution of crimes. I believe that the County of Kauai has excellent resources to support the victims of our community. My hope is that my words will be a starting point for restoring the full scope of the Victim Witness Program back to its intended purpose for our victims, community, and ohana.

Sincerely,

Erin Wilson