11
March
2007
Another bunch of tangled noodles to make sense of. There’s apparently a problem with a state law on “Death with Dignity”. The disabled are worried about being asked to be killed through “reduced protections.” And the law may lead to infant euthanasia (I’m assuming that’s a new term for “abortion”?).
I don’t know what the legislature was about, but given that the bill is now held because of a medical professional means it can’t be completely unreasonable. The writer implies that the state shouldn’t require doctors to act against their Hippocratic Oath (see wikipedia here), but then has no problem for an Ohana and their personal physician to take end of life decisions without legal sanction. So it’s better for a family to end the life of a loved one, than the state saying that they can do so without repercussions?
The word “dignity” seems to be a particular sore spot, as if there can be no dignity in any legal “killing.”
Yet
the state should never put itself in the position of sanctioning killing other than for the purpose of protecting society
This is icky. It’s ok to kill the bad guys, it’s not ok to assist the good guys. I thought the Hippocratic Oath said something about doing no harm (and that it also is against doctors assisting in executions). Sometimes when people get to the end of their life, you may be doing harm by not letting them go and helping them to go. People with terminal cancers are usually not “kept alive at all costs.” The decision is how to help them and increase their “quality of life.”
“Quality of life” is not the same as “alive.”
(Original found here.)
UPDATE: a day later another person wrote in regarding this article. He comes from a different perspective and sounds rather angry at the original views expressed. Of course more valid points. Sometimes you feel that it is time for new language to view all this. The Republican Administration is great at coming up with slogan, or new terms for things we already call something (like “Insurgents,” or “War on Terror,” or “Unlawful Combatants”). Let’s apply that same and rename something known. We have Conservatives and Liberals. But they’re conserving and liberating what - the Status Quo? OK - so how about “old fashioned” and “modern?” (or “stubborn” and “impatient” if that sounds better).
Anyways, the followup letter was pissed, though heartfelt.
Death with Dignity
Protect Marriage and the Terminally Ill
Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:49 AM HST
The person who recently wrote a letter castigating Hawaii’s Legislature for not passing a “death with dignity” bill was evidently not present in the Health Committee hearing where public testimony regarding this subject occurred.
I was, and I can tell you the testimony against this very deceptive legislation was overwhelmingly against it. There were no arguments given that were more powerful than those from the community of the disabled, all of whom understood (as well as the U.S. Supreme Court) that this type of law can push us further down the “slippery slope” of reduced protections for the most vulnerable in society.
There is nothing “humanitarian” or “dignifying” about giving legal sanction to health care providers to begin functioning contrary to their Hippocratic oaths. When the state tries to define which people have more or less dignity based upon their physical condition in a given near death experience, it perverts its role in society to treat everyone as equal under the law, and it will ultimately fail. This is the “fruit” of such actions in Belgium and Holland and at a minimum, we can learn from their story. Indeed, these same countries are now slowly embracing the concept of infant euthanasia and it started with embracing the conceptual paradigm of “death with dignity”.
This bill never came before the Legislature as a result of any groundswell of public opinion, nor the breakdown of traditions that safeguard individuals prerogatives of deciding among their ohana and with their personal physician what end of life decisions to take without the force of legal sanction. The state should never put itself in the position of sanctioning killing other than for the purpose of protecting society.
Bob Dylan sang a song with a line “when we practice to deceive, oh, what a tangled web we weave.” This legislation, while perhaps well intended, would have created a tangled web of deception. Let us never participate in this deception under the guise of helping our neighbors and family members to die more peacefully, or with “greater dignity”.
Our local state representative, Josh Green, and his committee by a vote of 5 to 2, chose the wisest course of action and held the bill.
A far more serious issue at present (and one which hundreds of thousands of people did speak their mind on) is the Legislature seeking to overturn the results of the state wide referendum in 1998 that protected the institution of marriage by a majority vote of 69 percent.
House bill 908, entitled “Civil Unions” and described as “extending the same rights and responsibilities of spouses to partners in a civil union” would make a mockery of the 1998 vote.
It simply results in marriage being called by another name. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Husbands and wives take care for your children and let your legislators know your thoughts.
MS, Kailua-Kona
here is the follow up, found here.
Same sex unions
Conservative doublespeak
Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:47 AM HST
In his letter to the editor published on March 10, Mark Spengler, in his argument for protection of the terminally ill wrote, in arguing for the defeat of the bill, the state “perverts its role in society to treat everyone as equal under the law.”
Yet in the second part of his letter, he goes on to argue against “extending the same rights and responsibilities of spouses to partners in a civil union.” As so many in the conservative fight against any kind of legal recognition of civil unions, Mr. Spengler argues for the state to treat conservative issues “as equal under the law,” all while talking out of the other side of his mouth and demanding that civil unions not be recognized.
For someone who is so concerned about protecting marriage, perhaps their attention would be better focused on Las Vegas wedding chapels and the two-day marriages of the Britney Spears of the world. Furthermore, I would think that the conservatives of this country, if so concerned with holding marriage up as the proper adult relationship between two committed, loving people, they would be clamoring for co-habiting gays and lesbians to marry instead of “shacking up.”
Instead, conservatives seemingly have to have someone to feel superior to. Think about it: Gays and lesbians remain the last group of people that it is still socially acceptable, and legal, to discriminate against in most of the nation.
Yes, even toothless residents of trailer park ghettos can sit in their smoke-filled homes waiting for their next government handout, but they can still feel superior to even the most successful homosexual in their town, because they have the legal recognition of their relationship, whatever that may be.
Are conservative marriages on such shaky ground that if the gay couple in your neighborhood had equal recognition under the law, your marriage would lose its sanctity? Would you end up in divorce court? Would the thought of gays having the same rights as you regarding hospital visitation, inheritance, taxes, and all the rest cause you to question your own sexuality? Is your grasp on heterosexuality so weak that you are concerned that you would join my “team” if, God forbid, we had the same tax deduction, or my partner could be covered by my medical insurance?
Conservatives of America, you should know that gays are not clamoring to burst into their local Baptist, Pentecostal, or Catholic church during Sunday services and demand to be married. This may come as a shock to you, but in many cities, we have our own churches. But even in small towns like Kona, where there is not a gay church, being humans, we are not generally inclined to barge in on a body of Jesus’ followers — where we likely would be viewed with disdain, be unwelcome, and in some locales we would be at risk for physical harm –in a church or just outside of it.
“What would Jesus do?” The Jesus I know is about love, and I don’t believe He would look favorably on people who treat others as inferior humans.
Happily there are denominations where generally, all are welcome, so if your church is not among them you can relax: don’t look for me in your house of bigotry and homophobia, I won’t be there.
I will admit that HB 908, as written, had a flaw. I do not think any 16-year-old should be allowed to “marry” — anybody. But I am not the least bit interested in a 16-year-old, but I remain interested in my 41-year-old partner.
And he thanks you Mr. Spengler, and all the taxpayers of this country, as Medicare has paid for two expensive hip replacement surgeries in the last two years.
I’m sure that Blue Cross thanks America’s conservatives too, since they do not have to recognize a legal relationship with my partner, they didn’t have to insure him or pay for his expensive surgeries.
I hope you think of that when you write your next big check to the IRS.
B.L., Kailua-Kona
Posted: local, health, legal
11
March
2007
Recently heard the news that Guantanamo is finally set up to accept prosecution of terrorism suspects. Their first case, David Hicks, an Australian. Don’t know exactly what happened, but Dick Cheney was in Australia recently and pestered about Mr. Hicks. So now we have a citizen of our ally having spent 5 years in prison without charges, and we’re trying to keep his lawyer quiet.
… notes that it is a crime under military law for an officer to use “contemptuous words” about high public officials.
It seems that Marine Major Michael Mori is an Australian, but since he is a military guy and this is a military case that military law applies. Military law is apparently very different, because free speech does seem to have higher limits. I wonder if he could defend the person if he wasn’t military.
Now I’m assuming there are many kinds of different laws in this country, or actually even cross-country (like religious laws) and the main problem will be what set of rules you play under. The administration has made it clear that you play under our rules, which means “civilian laws do not apply,” and “we determine what laws we’ll accept.”
So David Hicks (see wikipedia here), is, like John Walker Lindh (see wikipedia here), a white muslim convert who felt strong enough to support a cause he believed in. They both got busted. We haven’t heard from Lindh in a while, but probably because he’s already in jail near Los Angeles.
Nice to see that the administration needs to make its case through intimidation.
(Original found here.)
Guantanamo Intimidation
Lawyers for Terrorism Suspects are Still Being Bullied.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007; A18
CULLY STIMSON may be gone from the Pentagon, but his spirit unfortunately lives on. Mr. Stimson, you may recall, was the Pentagon official in charge of Guantanamo Bay prisoners who had to leave his post after suggesting that private law firms shouldn’t be representing detainees. Now the Pentagon’s chief Guantanamo prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, has gotten into the attack-the-defense-lawyers act, this time complaining about the conduct of a military lawyer assigned to defend Australian David Hicks, who has been accused of terrorism. Mr. Hicks, who has spent five years at Guantanamo after allegedly being caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, was charged last week with providing material support for terrorism and is to face trial before a military commission.
Mr. Hicks’s outspoken military lawyer, Marine Maj. Michael Mori, has spent a good deal of time in Australia helping stir up public support for his client, and he has been unsparing in his criticism of the military tribunals, going so far as to call them kangaroo courts. His needling clearly is getting under the prosecution’s skin. “Certainly in the U.S. it would not be tolerated having a U.S. Marine in uniform actively inserting himself into the political process. It is very disappointing to see that happening in Australia, and if that was any of my prosecutors, they would be held accountable,” Col. Davis was quoted as telling The Australian newspaper. Col. Davis, though he later said he wasn’t suggesting a court-martial, noted that it is a crime under military law for an officer to use “contemptuous words” about high public officials.
Col. Davis’s unsubtle effort to quiet Maj. Mori may be even more disturbing than Mr. Stimson’s remarks: It’s not likely that private law firms are going to be intimidated out of representing their clients, but military lawyers who have to fear for their careers might think twice before zealously representing their clients. “Recent statements attributed to both the defense and prosecution in the David Hicks case do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense,” Pentagon press officer Cynthia O. Smith told us when we called for comment. Okay, but it’s the prosecution that really needs reining in.
Posted: politics, legal
10
March
2007
Another set of articles happening within days leading to confusion (see nutrition article previous to this one). So on Tuesday we get an article that the white house says the surveillance programs are ok. On Saturday we have an article when the two top policemen in the country, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Muller, state that the FBI broke the law with their misuses of national security letters.
“People have to believe in what we say,” Gonzales said. … We have some work to do to reassure … the American people that we are serious about being responsible in the exercise of these authorities.”
How can we be reassured if only days after trumpeting that you think things are legal, you get blown out of the water. You give the FBI some questionable authority, they abuse it. Whose fault is that? You opened the door, against everybody else’s warnings … That’s why you need to have oversight and debate in government.
(Originals found here and here).
First the “it’s OK” message (by the way, is it strange that the White House sets up a board who researches an issue to determine that it’s own program is cleared?)
Privacy Board Clears U.S. Spy Programs
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Monday, March 5, 2007; 9:13 PM
WASHINGTON — A White House privacy board is giving its stamp of approval to two of the Bush administration’s controversial surveillance programs _ electronic eavesdropping and financial tracking _ and says they do not violate citizens’ civil liberties.
Democrats newly in charge of Congress quickly criticized the findings, which they said were questionable given some of the board members’ close ties with the Bush administration.
“Their current findings and any additional conclusions they reach will be taken with a grain of salt until they become fully independent,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.
After operating mostly in secret for a year, the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is preparing to release its first report to Congress next week.
The report finds that both the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program and the Treasury Department’s monitoring of international banking transactions have sufficient privacy protections, three board members told The Associated Press in telephone interviews.
Both programs have multiple layers of review before sensitive information is accessed, they said.
“We looked at the program, we visited NSA and met with the top people all the way down to those doing the hands-on work,” said Carol Dinkins, a Houston lawyer and former Reagan administration assistant attorney general who chairs the board.
“The program is structured and implemented in a way that is properly protective and attentive to civil liberties,” she said.
Some board members were troubled by the Homeland Security Department’s error-ridden no-fly lists, which critics say use subjective or inconclusive data to flag suspect travelers.
One area the board will focus on in its report is the computerized anti-terrorism screening system recently announced by DHS and used for years without travelers’ knowledge to assign risk assessments to millions of Americans who fly abroad.
“That’s a place where there’s a lot of opportunity for improvement,” Dinkins said.
Lanny Davis, a former Clinton White House counsel and the lone Democrat on the panel, described the board’s first report to Congress as modest. He said most of the work in the past year was spent being briefed on the administration’s surveillance programs.
“We felt reassured regarding the checks-and-balance concerns,” Davis said. He said that after several classified briefings, members were impressed by the multiple layers of review, which included audit trails to track whoever has access to the data.
Still, Davis said he anticipated the board will continue to monitor the program as needed. “It would be a mistake if that was the end of the review,” he said.
The board’s initial findings come as Congress is moving forward on measures to give the board more authority and make it more independent of the president. Created in late 2004, the panel was established as a compromise between Congress and the White House after a recommendation by the Sept. 11 commission.
Both conservative and liberal civil liberties groups have urged the members to aggressively review the eavesdropping program and have questioned whether board members would stand up to the president if he were flouting the law.
In recent weeks, the administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of judges oversee the program. But many lawmakers and civil libertarians have remained skeptical about its legality, and the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating whether the agency used any of the information improperly.
The warrantless program monitors phone calls and e-mails between the United States and other countries that are suspected to be linked to agents of al-Qaida. A federal judge in Detroit last August declared the program unconstitutional. Government attorneys have since asked a Cincinnati-based appeals court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the case is moot because the surveillance is now monitored by a secret court.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called it absurd that the White House board effectively gave the eavesdropping program its stamp of approval even before the administration was forced to backtrack and submit it to court oversight.
“I have no confidence in the current board in its ability to provide meaningful evaluation of important programs such as the no-fly lists, based on its work on the domestic surveillance program,” he said. “It is critical that Congress make the civil liberties board independent of the executive branch.”
The board does not have subpoena power, and the White House can change its annual reports before they go to Congress. The members serve at the pleasure of Bush, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has final say over whether officials must comply with the board’s recommendations.
Separate House and Senate measures would require that the entire board _ not just the chairman and vice chairman _ be confirmed by the Senate.
The House version would also remove the board from the executive office of the president but keep it within the executive branch and give it subpoena power. The Senate version would keep the board within the executive office and allow it to ask the attorney general to issue subpoenas, with notice to Congress required if a subpoena request was refused or modified.
The privacy board members declined to comment on the proposed legislation. But they have made it clear they believe the board works effectively in its current structure and that it could alienate the president if members took on a more openly adversarial role.
Bush appointed Dinkins, a Republican, to chair the board. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was treasurer of Bush’s first campaign for governor of Texas, and she is a longtime partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Gonzales was once a partner.
The panel’s other GOP members are vice chairman Alan Raul, a Washington attorney, and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Former Ambassador Francis Taylor is an independent.
On the Net:
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacyboard/
then the “busted” message
Gonzales, Mueller Admit FBI Broke Law
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The nation’s top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies.
The FBI’s transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. He found that agents sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.
The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge’s approval.
“People have to believe in what we say,” Gonzales said. “And so I think this was very upsetting to me. And it’s frustrating.”
“We have some work to do to reassure members of Congress and the American people that we are serious about being responsible in the exercise of these authorities,” he said.
Under the Patriot Act, the national security letters give the FBI authority to demand that telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses produce personal records about their customers or subscribers. About three-fourths of the letters issued between 2003 and 2005 involved counterterror cases, with the rest for espionage investigations, the audit reported.
Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, said Justice auditors, who were careful to note they found no indication of criminal misconduct.
Still, “we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities,” the audit concluded.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said many of the problems were being fixed, including by building a better internal data collection system and training employees on the limits of their authority. The FBI has also scrapped the use of “exigent letters,” which were used to gather information without the signed permission of an authorized official.
“But the question should and must be asked: How could this happen? Who is accountable?” Mueller said. “And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable.”
Mueller said he had not been asked to resign, nor had he discussed doing so with other officials. He said employees would probably face disciplinary actions, not criminal charges, following an internal investigation of how the violations occurred.
The audit incensed lawmakers in Congress already seething over the recent dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys. Democrats who lead House and Senate judiciary and intelligence oversight panels promised hearings on the findings. Several lawmakers , Republicans and Democrats alike , raised the possibility of scaling back the FBI’s authority.
Click Here!
“It’s up to Congress to end these abuses as soon as possible,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Patriot Act was never intended to allow the Bush administration to violate fundamental constitutional rights.”
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the audit shows “a major failure by Justice to uphold the law.”
“If the Justice Department is going to enforce the law, it must follow it as well,” said Hoekstra, of Michigan.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the audit proves Congress must amend the Patriot Act to require judicial approval anytime the FBI wants access to sensitive personal information.
“The attorney general and the FBI are part of the problem, and they cannot be trusted to be part of the solution,” said ACLU’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero.
Both Gonzales and Mueller called the national security letters vital tools in pursuing terrorists and spies in the United States. “They are the bread and butter of our investigations,” Mueller said.
Gonzales asked the inspector general to issue a follow-up audit in July on whether the FBI had followed recommendations to fix the problems.
Fine’s annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration. It concluded that the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law. Each letter issued may contain several requests.
In 2000, for example, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 requests. That number peaked in 2004 with 56,000. Overall, the FBI reported issuing 143,074 requests in national security letters between 2003 and 2005.
But that did not include an additional 8,850 requests that were never recorded in the FBI’s database, the audit found. A sample review of 77 case files at four FBI field offices showed that agents had underreported the number of national security letter requests by about 22 percent.
Additionally, the audit found, the FBI identified 26 possible violations in its use of the letters, including failing to get proper authorization, making improper requests under the law and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records.
The FBI also used exigent letters to quickly get information , sometimes in non-emergency situations , without going through proper channels. In at least 700 cases, these letters were sent to three telephone companies to get billing records and subscriber information, the audit found.
On the Net:
The report is at: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/index.ht
Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov
FBI: http://www.fbi.gov
Posted: politics, legal
25
February
2007
Guy becomes famous doing an illegal act in a foreign country while in pursuit of the law. He is successful and escapes before being busted. Now the country is coming after him and wants him extradited to face justice.
This person has since played his cards well and used his action to kick start a TV career (on Arts & Entertainment of all channels) and become a famous TV star with a lot of supporters appreciating his approach and effectiveness. They are of course upset at the possibility of their hero being busted for busting somebody, so this is obviously wrong.
So what would happen if it was the other country that acted unilaterally. What if a Mexican bounty hunter came into this country to capture a Mexican criminal to take him back for prosecution without the U.S.’s approval? Would we complain that our sovereignty has been violated? Would it make a difference if the bounty hunter was the No. 1 TV star in Mexico?
(Original found here.)
Mexican Court allows TV Bunty Hunter to be Extradited
The Associated Press ason not to try him with the charge of deprivation of liberty of Mexico.
Guadalajara, Mexico - “We only just heard about the Mexican court’s decision to continue with the extradition proceedings, and are still in shock,” Chapman and his wife, Beth, said in a statement issued Thursday night in Honolulu.
“Our attorneys have not even been formally informed of the court’s decision, as of yet,” they said. “We are obviously deeply disappointed and fearful of what will happen, and are currently absorbing the news and discussing our options at this time.”
Mexican authorities had already asked for Chapman’s extradition from Hawaii.
Chapman’s lawyers argued he would not be guaranteed a fair trial in Mexico, Jara said.
The charges against the 53-year-old star of the A&E reality series “Dog the Bounty Hunter” stem from his June 2003 capture of convicted rapist Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir, in Puerto Vallarta, 210 miles west of Guadalajara.
Chapman was arrested Sept. 14 along with his son and another associate and released on $300,000 bail. He faces up to four years in a Mexican jail if convicted.
Luster’s capture shot the Honolulu-based bounty hunter to fame and led to the TV series. His disappearance set off an international manhunt by police, FBI and bounty hunters trying to recoup some of the bond money. Luster is serving a 124-year prison term.
Posted: social/culture, legal
31
January
2007
A quick update on the condemnation proceedings of a property to allow connection of a second road south to alleviate Kona’s afternoon traffic jam. Apparently the County’s own legal team, goofed. I’ve dealt with them before about a potential safety problem with them dedicating an unsafe road and was told “we don’t care what you think, we got it and that’s it.” Ah well. Point is well taken, they may be cheap, but you get what you pay for.
I’m glad that our local judge Ibarra seems to be a completely competent person, even if he is unpopular.
Now, on this same topic, we get a letter from a frequent contributor that offers a somewhat scary interpretation.
the needs of the overall community outweight the rule of law and the landowner’s rights in this situation
Laws are there for a reason. You don’t get to pick and choose them to suit your own agenda, because everybody else can do so too, and pandemonium will ensue. Much better to deal with the process and change the rules, so everybody benefits. Even if I disagree, I have to support the laws for society to function. What if it was your property in question, would you want to count on the protection?
(Couldn’t find either one of those online, so they’re retyped.)
County Legal Efforts on Bypass Road Hit Another Dead End
The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel takes another bold move forward, and falls on its face - again. That’s the essence of the county’s crack legal maneuverings as it attempts to navigate an eminent domain condemnation for the South Kona bypass road.
There will be no action on this long-awaited, long-litigated, long-mediated and long-promised road for our long-suffering community - until it goes to trial in July. The Coupe family will have another day in court to hear their argument that an easement being sought for the South Kona bypass road across their property is not a public benefit, rather the half-built highway is a benefit to the developer, 1250 Oceanside Partners.
To put the issue most succeinctly and bluntly, hawaii County attorneys have been som ham-fisted in their pursuit of the entire Hokulia issue, from its development permit approval process, to its “first-of-its-kind” developer’s agreement, this episode has taken the appearance of textbook ineptitude.
County attorneys, working on our behalf, have failed repeatedly to make a compelling case of the importance of this bypass road to the public, that it is indeed a public benefit. This same legal team, motions in hand, again came to bat in the Third Circuit Court earlier this month with claims of new evidence in the proceeding to provide a basis for reconsideration and clearance by the court for the county to proceed with condemnation of the highway corridor, allowing the value later to be determined in court.
Not so, Third Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra correctly ruled.
The clarity of his ruling was the antithesis of the county’s efforts: “… the court finds there is no newly discovered evidence or new arguments which by due diligence could not have been discovered or raised prior to the hearing on 1250 Oceanside Partner’s motion for pretrial summary judgment …. nor is there any inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”
While blame might easily be cast upon the court in this finding, as in its earlier rulings that stopped the Holkulia project, the court does not base its rulings upon sentiment, frustration over traffic or political allegiance, rather the rule of law, which while subject to argument, ultimately is clear in these rulings.
What our county saves annually in salaries paid to its combined legal assets in the office of the Corporation Counsel is offset by an exponential increase in the expense incurred by that office’s ineffectiveness to our residents, in fascal, civil, socila and political contexts.
Everybody laughs at attorney jokes, but it’s not funny whent he joke is being played upon us.
A Reader’s Response
I’m very frustrated by the seemingly never ending Hokulia bypass condemnation litigation. yes, it seems the county has dropped the ball concerning new evidence and bringing up the laches argument during this latest round.
But to me, the needs of the overall community outweight the rule of law and the landowner’s rights in this situation. Why should the community suffer through bumper-t-bumper traffic just because of one selfish landowner and the ineptitude of Hawaii County? Bottom line is this condemnation litigation has been dragging on for six years. How much longer will this drag on - while the overall community suffers?
Overall, I’m not very optimistic that this much needed roadway will ever be completed, especially after Judge Ibarra’s recent damaging court rulings.
I strong urge the Coupe family to allow this condemnatio of 2.9 acres of their land to move forward. So this much-needed roadway can be completed.
A.S. Kailua-Kona
Posted: social/culture, local, legal
