Thursday, February 16, 2012
Help end medical cannabis raids
by Larry Geller
Hey – have you called the Governor yet today? Not yet? Good. Here’s something you can discuss with him when you do.
This is a broadcast email from the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. Reclassifying cannabis out of Schedule I should save Hawaii a lot of money, aside from other good reasons. And why should we pay to keep prisoners in dangerous Mainland prisons when we can empty the jails of non-violent pot smokers?
But DPFHI’s request is more specific and related to medical cannabis. Maybe we can help make these federal raids disappeared news.
Call or Email Governor Abercrombie Today!
Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii joins with other national organizations in
asking members to call or email Gov. Abercrombie and ask him to sign
with Governors Gregoire and Chafee on a petition to reclassify cannabis
out of Schedule I.
In the past year , the U.S. Justice Department has taken a very
aggressive stance on medical cannabis, using raids and threats as a
means to undermine the laws of several medical cannabis states. Notably,
U.S. Attorneys sent intimidating letters to several governors (including
Gov. Aberecrombie) in an attempt to stop them from implementing safe and
sensible regulations. Enough is enough!
In response to these aggressive actions, Governors Gregoire (WA) and
Chafee (RI) have filed a petition with the Drug Enforcement
Administration to reclassify cannabis out of Schedule I, which would
recognize its medical efficacy, increase therapeutic research, and help
establish greater access for sick patients across the country.
You can email Gov. Abercrombie here:
http://www.policyninja.org/inside-advocacy/?letter=125&public
Or you can call: 808-586-0034
Hilo: 808-974-6262
Kauai: 808-274-3100
Kona: 808-327-4953
Maui: 808-243-5796
Say something like: "My name is ________, and I am calling to urge Gov.
Abercrombie to sign onto the petition of Governors Gregoire and Chafee
to reclassify cannabis out of Schedule I; doing so will help us end
federal interference in medical cannabis programs. We need his support
to ensure that patients have safe access to medical cannabis. Thank you."
Please call or email today!
Jeanne Y. Ohta
Executive Director
Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii
HPD destroys cannibis, but the church wants it back anyway, takes case to the 9th circuit
by Larry Geller
This case is different, and the article is well written. Check it out even if you don’t usually read legal cases.
Church Takes Cannabis Claims to the 9th Circuit (Courthouse News Service, 2/16/2012)
There’s no prosecution against the church, which said it uses the pot in its religious activities. It wasn’t seized from them, either. FedEx gave the package to the DEA which gave it to HPD which destroyed it (really? by, um, slow burning?). So shouldn’t the church get it back, or monetary damages? (Side question: just what was FedEx doing looking into their package?)
Judge Susan Oki Mollway rejected the plaintiff’s claims, and so this perhaps unlikely case has gone before the appeals court.
How much does Target know about your private life? As much, maybe, as your spouse does, or more
“Also linked to your Guest ID is demographic information like your age, whether you are married and have kids, which part of town you live in, how long it takes you to drive to the store, your estimated salary, whether you’ve moved recently, what credit cards you carry in your wallet and what Web sites you visit. Target can buy data about your ethnicity, job history, the magazines you read, if you’ve ever declared bankruptcy or got divorced, the year you bought (or lost) your house, where you went to college, what kinds of topics you talk about online, whether you prefer certain brands of coffee, paper towels, cereal or applesauce, your political leanings, reading habits, charitable giving and the number of cars you own.”
by Larry Geller
The pull-quote above demonstrates how corporations use information mined from various sources to set you up to buy. Even your smartphone rats on you. If you can’t trust Siri, who can you trust?
The New York Times article opened with the question of how a Target researcher could deduce that a woman is in her second trimester of pregnancy.
“If we wanted to figure out if a customer is pregnant, even if she didn’t want us to know, can you do that? ”
Why would Target want to know that?
… And among life events, none are more important than the arrival of a baby. At that moment, new parents’ [shopping] habits are more flexible than at almost any other time in their adult lives. If companies can identify pregnant shoppers, they can earn millions.
[NY Times, How Companies Learn Your Secrets, 2/16/2012]
Of course, the process would end up highly automated. Then some computer somewhere in Target would do a mailing. That’s how they earn millions.
The article is a good read, touching on the psychological and neurological aspects of habit. Partway down they introduce a tiny OR in which surgeons implant tiny electrodes in the brains of rats (will they learn that the rats would rather be eating bananas in Chinatown? Nevermind).
It’s possible to stay out of these databases, especially if you pay cash and don’t use a store discount card. And if you both turn off your smartphone and pull out the battery before heading off to the store. Most of us are not going to do that, so our shopping (and other) habits are enshrined in databases everywhere. Of course, that data can be sold, traded and subpoenaed.
Read the article.
Oh, and of course, someone knows you are doing that, and when, where, and on what computer. And maybe they know if your toenails are clipped and if you are wearing fresh underwear. And what you will do tonight should one of you get pregnant.
Or if it’s not your wife who gets pregnant, they may know that too.
Help kill the bill: SB2845 erodes workers’ rights in a workers’ comp dispute
by Larry Geller
SB2845 will be heard tomorrow at 10 a.m. by the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee. It has no testimony as yet, except mine (opposing). Here’s your chance to exert your power and kill the bill.
This bill (introduced by Senate President Shan Tsutsui) takes away a worker’s right to a hearing if medical treatment is denied in a workers’ comp case. It takes away a worker’s right to due process.
Instead, the Director of the Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations will make a summary judgment in disputes on treatment plans.
What qualifications does the Director of DLIR have to do this?
More important, it will be much more difficult for a worker to challenge the decision in court because would be no evidentiary hearing, no finding of facts, and no record for a court to review.
In other words, a sick or injured worker will be screwed if DLIR decides to cut off treatment. Workers’ comp cases are ugly enough without this bill.
This bill would also tilt the table even more towards the employer.
So please consider clicking on the link above, then push the Submit Testimony button at the top-center of the page, and ask the committee to reject this bill. You can use this article as talking points, but please don’t quote it exactly, form your own opinion and use your own words.
And spread the word. Working people in Hawaii should be concerned that this bill might pass. It’s up for a hearing tomorrow, so tweet today.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tea Party + Occupy + Beer
Watch: Occupy & Tea Party Hold Beer Summit at CPAC, journalist Eddie Becker's YouTube video (with comments below) (2/13/2012). I won’t embed it here because you’d miss the comments. Please click.
Your iPhone doesn’t have an operating system, it has a spy network
“Twitter Inc. has acknowledged that after mobile users tap the "Find friends" feature on its smartphone app, the company downloads users' entire address book, including names, email addresses and phone numbers, and keeps the data on its servers for 18 months. The company also said it plans to update its apps to clarify that user contacts are being transmitted and stored.”
by Larry Geller
Yes, your entire address book. Out of your hands, out of your control. Well, you bought an iPhone, this is what you get.
For those of you who are old enough to remember DOS, now that was an operating system. When a program needed to write to the screen, DOS did it. DOS managed the disk directory, etc. DOS was crude and not very capable but enough for a desktop computer running only a program at a time. Unfortunately, the system architecture and operating system design have maintained that simplistic model even though we are now networked and like to multitask.
Who really knows what’s running on their computer today, right now? And what can you do about it if you find out?
On larger machines, particularly those that ran time-sharing services, the operating system enforced security through bulletproof system architecture. Multiple users were present in the machine at the same time, much like the multiple applications that run on modern desktops. The users could not communicate with each other. No way could Ford see Chrysler’s data, or the time-sharing vendor would be out of business.
No application could read or write anywhere in memory or on disk. No application could write to a system area like WINDOWS/SYSTEM32. Of course not, that doesn’t make sense.
We’ve lost that technology. So an app on your iPhone can literally do whatever it wants. No one is looking out for your interests, no operating system is enforcing security. Your contact list is an open book to the world. Some kid in Russia could be reading it now.
The Los Angeles Times article quoted above continues:
The company's current privacy policy does not explicitly disclose that Twitter downloads and stores user address books.
It does say that Twitter users "may customize your account with information such as a cellphone number for the delivery of SMS messages or your address book so that we can help you find Twitter users you know."
[Los Angeles Times, Twitter stores full iPhone contact list for 18 months, after scan, 2/14/2012]
So are they going to quit spying on you? No, they’re going to fix the wording of their privacy policy.
We have the technology to prevent this kind of spying, and at the same time to eliminate viruses and trojans and misguided programs of all sorts. It’s not rocket science. A virus is a program that accesses areas of the computer which it shouldn’t have access to. That is easily prevented, but not by the Microsoft/Intel architecture and not by the app masquerading as an operating system that runs your smartphone.
Perhaps users are so used to having their privacy violated that the massive complaint needed to reverse this trend will never happen.
Spying on you is a trend. Today it’s Twitter grabbing your contact list, tomorrow it will be something else. Or a new virus could invade your computer, because your computer permits it.
Unless users realize that this spying can be stopped and take action, it will only get worse.
House Judiciary committee passes involuntary commitment bill
by Larry Geller
The crazy bill I wrote about yesterday, HB2011, was passed by the Judiciary committee with as yet unknown amendments.
This is the bill that would permit your neighbor to file papers to have you committed. Maybe the folks next door don’t like your choice of music.
As a commenter pointed out, it would also allow treatment facilities to “trade” patients. Maybe the receiving facility would like to try out some new experimental drugs on you… no kidding.
I thought you should know who voted to pass this. If it becomes law, I might take out complaint papers against each of them. Why? You’d have to be crazy to pass this bill, as I said. And they did.
Voting yes on HB2011 yesterday:
Keith-Agaran, Rhoads, Brower, Cabanilla, Herkes, Ito, Luke, Souki, Tsuji, Fontaine, Marumoto, Thielen
The “disappeared news” about the Afghanistan war
"Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan."
The pull-quote above is from a must-read Rolling Stone article that is available on-line: The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read, (Rolling Stone, 2/10/2012). Check it out.
Links in the story will take you to a classified report and several other related articles.
See also Army Whistleblower Lt. Col. Daniel Davis Says Pentagon Deceiving Public on Afghan War (Democracy Now, 2/15/2012) (includes video).
From the Democracy Now interview with the author of the Rolling Stone article:
Now, what Colonel Davis is reporting and what we’ve seen from every other report is that, in fact, all this money we’re spending is—much of it’s going to waste. There’s pervasive drug problems, Taliban infiltration—you know, you go down the list—discipline problems, people not showing up. So, in fact, there’s an amazing moment in Colonel Davis’s report where he says that almost all the Afghan forces that he visited have different pacts themselves with the Taliban about—so they don’t actually want to fight each other. So, what does that tell you, right? And I witnessed that firsthand in Afghanistan, where I was with an Afghan unit, and they knew the Taliban would attack, because one of their friends in the Taliban would call and be like, "Hey guys, we’re attacking tonight."
Click. Read. Learn.
If the world were really to end in 2012, how might that happen?
by Larry Geller
If the world really did end in 2012, as Mayan calendar doomsday fans predict, how might that happen? UFOs landing? The Apocalypse? A Newt Gingrich victory in November elections?
Well, we are due for a peak in solar flare activity later this year. There is always the possibility of a really big storm reaching earth. The IEEE Spectrum February issue cover story notes that powerful solar storms hit our planet in 1921 and before that, in 1859.
The 1859 event was the more severe, but the planet was not criss-crossed at that time with electrical power grids fed by vulnerable nuclear plants. The worst thing that happened was likely that some telegraph operators found they could operate without batteries for the duration (perhaps the first known large scale harnessing of solar power for electricity??).
What would a really bad solar storm look like?
Luminous fingers of intense red, green, and violet light flicker and pulse across the northern and southern skies like a vast cosmic conflagration. Within minutes, millions of people are tweeting, texting, and blogging about the wondrous sight. But then the sky turns a deep blood red, and fascination turns to panic.
Linked to the celestial spectacle are enormous fluctuations of the magnetic field in Earth's magnetosphere, which are causing immense flows of electric current in the upper atmosphere over much of the planet. Those huge currents disturb Earth's normally quiescent magnetic field, which in turn induces surges of current in electrical, telecommunications, and other networks across entire continents. Streetlights flicker out; electricity is lost. A massive planetary blackout has occurred, leaving vast swaths of North and South America, Europe, Australia, and Asia without power.
[IEEE Spectrum, A Perfect Storm of Planetary Proportions, 2/2012]
That’s only the beginning. The article predicts that transformers could be destroyed throughout the electrical grid, and that nuclear power plants could be at risk of meltdown everywhere. And then…
Within a few months, the crisis has deepened. In many areas, food shortages are rampant, drinking water has become a precious commodity, and patients in need of blood transfusions, insulin, or critical prescription drugs die waiting. Normal commerce has ground to a halt, replaced by black markets and violent crime. As fatalities climb into the millions, the fabric of society starts to unravel.
Solar activity peaks on 11-year cycles, and there is no predicting when such a storm might impact earth as described. The article suggests a certainty that a strong storm will occur one day, it’s just that we don’t know when.
It also suggests that we have done nothing to prepare. The author proposes preventive measures—but will we go to the trouble or expense of protecting the grid against an unpredictable event occurring 150 million kilometers off in space?
I can’t imagine that anyone will question the Republican presidential candidates about their plans to harden the country’s electrical infrastructure: “Mr. Santorum, will you protect our country’s power grid by installing devices to bypass dangerous ground currents induced by solar storms?”
There’s no paywall on the IEEE website—check out the Spectrum article at the link above. It’s not highly technical, and after reading it you may want to lay in a larger supply of bottled water and batteries in your emergency kit just in case the Mayans were right.
Johan Galtung’s view from Europe-- Israel-USA vs Iran: Talk Peace!
Israel-USA vs Iran: Talk Peace!
by Johan Galtung, 13 Feb 2012 - TRANSCEND Media Service
The state system at its worst: trading insults and threats, sanctions, readiness to use extreme violence, forward deployment of US troops in Israel as hostages to guarantee US involvement, disregard for common people and the effects of warfare in the Middle East and the world. The options are harder sanctions, or war. The far better option, sitting down, with mediators, talking and searching for solutions, is absent. Polarization, escalation, the material of which wars are made fill the media. What a shame.
Indeed, there are multiple underlying conflicts. Take the nuclear issue: two haves against one have-not. But the USA lived with Soviet and Chinese nuclear bombs for a long time before they learnt to talk. Israel has lived with Pakistani nuclear options, referred to as “Islamic”, even with the bomb. Of course, the real, longer term goal could be that Pakistani bomb. But then, with no proof of an Iranian nuclear arms capability, why Iran?
One answer was given by El Baradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA: the West wants regime change, and uses the nuclear issue. Iran, Ahmadinejad, also wants regime change, in Israel, a “world without zionism”, likening it to the regime change in Iran after the shah, in the Soviet Union, and in Iraq after Saddam Hussein. He never said “wipe Israel off the map”, and signed the Riyadh declaration about recognizing Israel if Israel recognizes the 4 Jun 1967 borders.
The two issues are combined into sanctions “to create hate and discontent at the street level so that the Iranian leaders realize that they need to change their ways”, according to some US intelligence official. But this fails again and again: people suffer, but turn more against the direct source–Israel, USA, EU, UN–than their own rulers; even the “green” opposition leader in house arrest, Hussein Mussawi (Der Spiegel, 6/2012).
USA-Israel may be longing back to the Kissinger days when Iran under the shah was the US-appointed custodian for the Middle East, intervening in Oman, etc. To use a shia country for sunni order says much about the level of intelligence. The people of Iran, shia as well as communist, rejected the shah’s regime and the CIA-MI6 coup that brought it into power in 1953, for 25 years. Maybe the heart of the matter. For Anglo-America a routine affair, left to the intelligence boys, sharing their contempt for Arab and Muslim regimes. For Iranians, left, center, right, a deep, traumatizing humiliation. “One-nine-five-three” is heard when USA/Iran is brought up. To believe it is forgotten speaks badly of the perpetrators. An apology might work wonders.
Then comes Israel as the third issue, the Palestinians being only a part of the general conflict with Arabs-Muslims. To pose as a regional superpower, the only nuclear power in the region, neither Arab, nor Muslim, is a clear non-starter. But they do.
We could now list the scenarios. Iran is one of the biggest oil exporters in the world, closing the Strait of Hormuz (for which they no doubt have very elaborate plans) will have deep consequences, also for food supply if biodiesel is the alternative. The West should not underestimate Islamic solidarity across the shia-sunni divide. An attack may even unite Syria with Hezbollah, Hamas and others. Not even the Saudi position should be taken for granted.
Regime change in Iran and continued Israeli expansion as the Middle East hegemon does not bode a viable future. More expansionism, more vulnerability, until in the end strong anti-Israeli forces find the point of ultimate vulnerability, and pull the lever. Of any kind. Any victory for precise bombing before Iran becomes “impregnable” will be of a very short duration.
With issues such as these, is there any way out?
Of course there is. Think of the horror scenarios of nuclear war during the Cold War in Europe and how the Helsinki conference in 1973-75 pointed to a viable course of action, sabotaged by a USA wanting to deploy middle range missiles, but dampened tensions.
The first step for mutual accommodation is a Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle and Near East, modeled on Helsinki, starting with the conference for a weapons of mass destruction-free zone, already called by the UN for 2012?
Who could be the Finland of the region? The new and the old forces in Egypt, if the entrenched military are not too afraid of any peace that might block Camp David flow of money? Taking on this task would guarantee centrality in the region for a long time.
All three issues would be on the agenda, with possibilities:
* for the nuclear issue: a Middle and Near East nuclear free zone, with Israel and Iran;
* for the regime issue: joint supervision for fair and free elections, FAFE, so that the people decide about the regime;
* for the Israel vs Arab-Muslim states issue: a Middle Near East Community of Israel with neighbor countries, modeled on the 1958 Treaty of Rome for Europe, with an Organization for Security and Cooperation in the Middle and Near East-OSCMNE. This would all be consistent with the spirit of the Arab Spring, which also briefly touched Israel. Economic cooperation for shared development could be added.
When Israelis were asked “what would be better: for both Israel and Iran to have the bomb, or for neither to have it, 65 percent of Israeli Jews said neither. And a remarkable 64 percent favored the idea of a nuclear-free zone, even when it was explained that this would mean Israel giving up its nuclear weapons.” (IHT, 16 Jan 2012).
Vox populi vox Dei. Would Iranians answer the same? Probably, we should know. Maybe they all want to survive? Let them decide.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 United States License.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Two Hawaii stations may or may not lose their licenses as FCC dawdles on
by Larry Geller
Suppose you felt you were being irradiated by a radio transmitting tower next door that was in violation of FCC rules. You’d call the FCC about it, right? You’d get some inspectors down there with scientific instruments. They’d have to put a stop to it. Right?
Well, good luck with that. For those who have nothing else to do on this Valentine’s day, check out how these Hawaii folks were allegedly exposed to radiation by transmitting towers not in spec at least since 2004 and the FCC kind of limped along. It’s now 2012 and the station licenses may or may not be in jeopardy.
As I said, this is only if you have nothing else to do. The link is here (pdf).
The stations referred to in the FCC order are KAOI-FM, Wailuku, Hawaii, and KNUQ(FM), Paauilo, Hawaii.
Civil Beat learns that Hawaii doesn’t enforce all of its laws
by Larry Geller
Ah, a lesson for our malihini news website. Civil Beat is learning that just because there is a law on the books in Hawaii doesn’t mean it is enforced.
They’ve been told that getting public records they asked for would cost $123,000 and 16 months work. Nevermind that there’s a law that state departments must keep the records they asked for.
Read their two good article so far on this:
- Not So Public: Hawaii Agency Wants $123,000 To Review Records (Civil Beat, 2/14/2012)
- Off The Beat: Transparency Should Start At The Top (Civil Beat, 2/14/2012)
It’s not just the public records law of course. It’s mandatory reporting of child abuse, it’s the Safe Haven law, it’s the law that Hawaii will join with five other states in looking for cheaper sources of pharmaceuticals, it’s the stop-before-making-a-right-turn-on-red law, it’s the don’t-run-red-lights law, and so forth. The Sunshine Laws (open records, open meetings) are no exception to this. It’s the Hawaii way. Nobody’s watching you, so forget the law.
At the state legislature I often say that passing a new law may be important, but it’s only a beginning. Lawmakers, of course, are in charge of the making of the law. And that’s it. So they make the law, and nothing changes as a result. Those who testify fervently on one subject or another need to understand this—their good work is only a beginning. The law may be on the books, but in Hawaii, so what.
What to do? There ought to be a law.
Sneaky House bill seeks to remove the iceberg that the Superferry ran into
by Larry Geller
Legislators greased the skids for the Hawaii Superferry to begin operation without the required environmental review. Later, the state Supreme Court taught them a lesson about bypassing state environmental law. HRS 343 is the iceberg that sank the Superferry (that plus its own unprofitability).
This session, the House leadership is attacking the very law that the legislature tried unsuccessfully to circumvent.
Rep. Cynthia Thielen issued a press release today about a dangerous bill that has been put on a fast track in the House by Speaker Calvin Say. Without her alert, this bill might have squeezed through.
The bill would create a method for exempting state or county projects from Hawaii’s environmental law. It sets up a mechanism to bypass the environmental review process of HRS chapter 343 at the whim of the governor or any mayor.
HB1893 makes it sound as though Hawaii’s environmental laws are the enemy of economic recovery. Check out the inflammatory language. The bill starts off “The legislature finds that the economic recovery of the State is in jeopardy.” And the solution, of course, is to sacrifice the environment as well.
Just what shape will Hawaii be in if we kill environmental protections? Both tourism, the economic engine that keeps the place going, and our quality of life, depend on, well, the quality of our environment.
The authors also have the chutzpah to try to block any action against the exemption. Get this:
(1) The exemption granted for a project under this Act shall not be invalidated; and
(2) There shall not be any retroactive application of chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Translated into English, this seems to mean “Take your lawsuits and shove ‘em.”
Let me give some ink (?) to Rep. Thielen’s press release, since it alerted me to this in the first place:
Honolulu – Hawai‘i State Representative Cynthia Thielen (R, 50th District: Kailua, Kaneohe Bay) was outraged by House Leadership's recent decision to force through a bill which would exempt certain State and County projects from the environmental review process. HB1893 was re-referred to the House Finance Committee (FIN), bypassing its original referral to the House Committees on Economic Revitalization & Business (ERB) and Energy & Environmental Protection (EEP).
"This leaves the public with only one opportunity to testify to House Members and completely removes decision making by those Representatives selected to oversee environmental issues," Thielen explained. "HB1893 is a horrible bill which would undercut three decades of environmental law in Hawai‘i; it 'torpedos' our environmental protections."
The bill seeks to change the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 343, which established "a system of environmental review which will ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations", by exempting government projects from this public review.
"I am just astonished that Leadership would try to circumvent the legislative process in this way and diminish the review of a bill which seeks to reverse thirty years of steadfast law. HB1893 could devastate our environmental and cultural resources and potentially lead to severe economic damage through uninformed planning decisions," declared Thielen.
While HB1893's purpose is stated to "promote economic revitalization" and "benefit the general public", this recent action will instead undermine the public's trust in government and have a negative effect on both our environment and economy.
The status page for the bill shows that no hearings are scheduled yet. You can email or call the chair of the House Finance Committee and ask that the bill not be heard, or send something more formal to the committee. Call 586-6200 or email repmoshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov . If you are a constituent, say so.
And if they do hear it, make sure you send in some testimony. It’s very easy, just click the box at the top of the status page and fire away.
Unequal justice Hawaii style: Sexually assault young girl and go free, advocate pot smoking and stay in jail forever
by Larry Geller
Read this story if you have a paper or on-line access:
A 43-year-old Waianae man accused of raping a young girl and beating up her brother when he tried to intervene pleaded no contest Monday in a plea agreement by which he will serve no prison time.
…
According to the grand jury indictment against him, Kamaka committed the sexual assaults in January and February 2011, when the girl was under 14 years old.But a city prosecutor said Kamaka had been sexually assaulting the girl and beating the boy for five to six years.
[Star-Advertiser, Man accused of raping girl avoids prison with plea deal, 2/14/2012]
Then this:
A judge has ruled that a federal agent charged in a fatal shooting at a McDonald's restaurant can leave Hawaii and return to his home in Virginia while he awaits trial.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports (http://bit.ly/s782t3) that Circuit Judge Karen Ahn on Friday agreed to modify bail conditions for State Department Special Agent Christopher Deedy so that he could return home and work at a desk job with the department.
The 27-year-old Deedy is charged with murder in the shooting of a 23-year-old Kailua man at a Waikiki McDonald's on Nov. 5.
[Arizona Republic (AP), Judge rules agent charged in fatal shooting at a McDonald's restaurant can leave Hawaii, 12/31/2011]
Both cases were handled by the same judge, Circuit Judge Karen Ahn.
Hilo marijuana minister Roger Christie has been held for 17 months without bail in the Honolulu Federal Detention Center.
While his 13 co-defendants were released pending trial, Christie — charged with growing, selling and possessing pot — has been denied bail because he is considered a "danger to the community."
[Civil Beat, Hawaii Pot Minister's Bail Denial Called 'Rare', 12/29/2011]
Christie is being held by the feds.
Related:
If an accused murderer is free to travel, then Roger Christie must be a political prisoner in Hawaii (12/31/2011)
On how plea agreements have replaced trial by jury, see the very bottom of this article (scroll down).
You’d be crazy to pass this bill
by Larry Geller
HB2011 is a very dangerous bill. It is vague, discriminatory, and probably unconstitutional. It criminalizes mental illness, with language vague enough that anyone who's had a bad day could end up restrained.
It’s also plenty weird. On page 16, for example, it would allow your neighbor to file a petition to have you carried away if she thought you were weird.
Any person may file a petition alleging that a person located in the county not already in involuntary treatment for whom application could be made meets the criteria for commitment to a psychiatric facility.
The bill somehow made it through its first committee hearing despite testimony against it by the ACLU and others. It comes up before the House Judiciary Committee today at 2:05 p.m. (see link above for details).
As I pointed out in my own testimony, if any member of the audience feels that lawmakers would be crazy to pass this bill, should it pass, they can then file a petition against the lawmaker, triggering a whole police/legal process.
And they would be justified. Lawmakers would have to be crazy to pass this bill. QED.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Chair of Water, Land and Housing Committee holds fundraiser in town during session
by Larry Geller
This election year should be the poster child of corporate funding of politicians, given the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But at the state level, contributions directly to a candidate are the best way for a corporation to invest in their very own special politician. No Superpacs needed.
Tonight is a fundraiser held during session for Senator Donavan Dela Cruz, chair of the Water, Land and Housing Committee. He won election in 2010 with the aid of $231,365 in political contributions, according to followthemoney.org. He was featured at Disappeared News last year after holding a hearing, also during session, without public notice, but with a press release, and then followed it immediately with a fundraiser. I’ll recap that grand day in March 2011 below.
At least 31 states set some sort of limit on lawmakers holding fundraisers or raising funds during legislative sessions. Four states totally ban contributions by lobbyists or political action committees. Fourteen states have banned political contributions entirely during session, and a few extend that to a time period before or after session.
The idea, of course, is to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests on the decisions of lawmakers. During session there are bills introduced that could bring big bucks for one or more large companies or even unions.
Lawmakers are supposed to represent their constituents, not big business. But we all know the truth.
Hawaii has no such law, and certain politicians take good advantage of that. I’ve highlighted a few shindigs in the past, particularly those where the state lawmaker from a Neighbor Island holds a bash in town where constituents are unlikely to attend, and instead, lobbyists and large corporate donors are the prey.
In Hawaii, committee chairs are extremely powerful, to the point where they warp democratic space. Whether a bill ever gets heard depends entirely on the whim of these powerful few, and their whim is fueled by campaign contributions. Should they be allowed to ask for money from lobbyists and corporations while the financial future of these special interests may hang in the decisions they make as committee chairs?
This year I’d like to try and catch every one of these fundraisers. Why shouldn’t voters know who really pulls the strings for their state representative?
You vote for them, but when they set up shop at the State Capitol, who do they work for?
Today’s highlighted event is taking place even as I type this, in the Mandalay Restaurant in Honolulu, not far from the State Capitol. It’s a fundraising favorite. Senator Donavan Dela Cruz is throwing a bash at the restaurant from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. and is asking for $100 per attendee. Senator Dela Cruz represents District 22, which is a central Oahu district, so at least his constituents might possibly drive over to attend.
Sen. Dela Cruz is the chair of the Water, Land and Housing Committee and is the go-to guy for developers or other deep pocket folks concerned in any way with land use in Hawaii. You wanna have him on your side if you plan to build something someplace. You need him. Friending him on Facebook isn’t enough, the way to a politician’s heart is through your pocketbook.
For what happened last year, see: Hawaii senate committee meets without public notice right before a fundraiser for its chair, (3/31/2011).
I wrote again in November, when the OHA Kakaako land deal came up:
The earlier article described a meeting held on March 28, 2011 by the Senate Committee on Water, Land and Housing at the Capitol, for which no public notice was posted, in violation of Senate rules. The purpose of the meeting?
Water, Land and Housing Committee Chair Senator Donovan Dela Cruz and Vice Chair Senator Malama Solomon are holding a meeting to discuss and share ideas on the redevelopment of the Honolulu urban core and main streets of Hawaii. The meeting is aimed at bringing the private sector and government together and building a common vision for job creation and stimulating our state's economy.
Note that the only participants in this urban planning meeting were unabashedly “the private sector and government“ to the exclusion of the public. The “job creation” mention is a crock. The private sector has no responsibility to create jobs, only to create profit.
It got worse:
Permitting procedures, land use strategies, restructuring government and other relative aspects to ensure redevelopment will be examined. Organizations in the construction and development industries, trade associations and trade unions will be attending to provide input.
And then it got really bad: It was scheduled for the same day, and immediately before, a fundraiser held by the Chair, Senator Donavan Dela Cruz.
As Chair of the Committee on Water. Land and Housing, there is a considerable amount of work to accomplish in order to improve our business climate for proper and responsible development while protecting our natural resources. To date, my Vice Chair Senator Malama Solomon and I have started to build a foundation for a progressive agenda to move Hawaii forward with land use strategies, public private partnerships, and restructuring the departments within our purview.
With your help and financial support, my campaign will have the resources to communicate and promote our agenda and accomplishments.In other words, let’s hold our meeting out of the public view, then please come over to my fundraiser where we can work on “our agenda.”
Of course, we the people don’t know if the OHA land transfer was discussed at that meeting. We weren’t invited. Solomon and Dela Cruz attempted to cover their a**es by issuing a press release that very morning, which of course could not appear in any newspaper or TV news.
Here’s the report from followthemoney.org on how well Sen. Dela Cruz did the year before, which was an election year. Imagine the cozy crowd at the Mandalay right now—it probably looks something like this:
This is the breakdown by industry and by sector:
No surprise, for a powerful chair of the Water, Land and Housing Committee. Oh, and he’s a representative of the families living in District 22. I wonder how many were at the Mandalay tonight?
Legal background to Kakaako-OHA land transfer deal
“The lands to be given to OHA seem to be ground zero for tsunami inundation.”—OHA Kakaako land deal may be all wet (11/17/2011)
by Larry Geller
Why begin a blog post by quoting myself? Well, coverage of the OHA Kakaako land transfer deal seems to omit this fact—the land around the edge of Kakaako is outside the “red line” drawn by the University of Hawaii as the tsunami inundation zone for that area.
So who else should I quote?
The transfer is an incredibly big deal. I’d like you to click over to a story on the Courthouse News Service website, Hawaii Land Question May Be Resolved (Courthouse News Service, 1/13/2012). This article is the best background to the land transfer that I have seen. It’s a good bit of research. It’s not related to the tsunami inundation issue, but shouldn’t the quality of the land somehow enter into the discussion?
Aside from the background, the author appears to be paying good attention to the politics behind the deal. For example, this snippet:
Gov. Neil Abercrombie and Attorney General David Louie, in partnership with OHA, proposed the settlement in November 2011 and are beginning to issue executive orders for parcels throughout the Hawaiian Islands.
The OHA represents Hawaiians both legally and culturally in the settlement, which would include conveyance of 30 acres of oceanfront parcels in Honolulu's Kaka'ako Waterfront Park and Fisherman's Wharf.
The proposed settlement gives the state continued easements and ground and water rights. That's because part of the Kaka'ako area may be part of a High-Capacity Transit Corridor railroad that is still in litigation in Federal Court.
So the land will be for the benefit of the Hawaiian people unless, that is, we need to put a train there. ??
Please click over to the Courthouse News Service story. When you come back, have another look at my older articles below.
Related:
OHA Kakaako land deal may be all wet (11/17/2011)
Putting two and two together—OHA land transfer and secret government/private development meetings (11/30/2011)
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Rep. Cynthia Thielen on electricity rates, Hawaii’s continued dependence on fossil fuels
by Larry Geller
Hawaii Representative Cynthia Thielen is a steadfast champion of renewable energy in Hawaii. Below are two videos (the second one is quite short) of her statements on the floor of the House in opposition to HB425, which would continue our dependence on fossil fuels by setting distant and relaxed goals for renewables.
We need somehow to “occupy” the minds of legislators who risk escalation in the amount ratepayers will have to spend to keep the kitchen stove running. Plus, of course, the environmental damage that will be done if we continue to depend on oil and coal for energy.
If you are concerned, track that bill, or contact Rep. Thielen’s office to find out how you can support her in her good fight. Her office phone is 586-6480 or email repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov .
(Thanks to Michele Van Hessen of the Minority Caucus for pointing to the two videos.)
At last–exploding pig poop explained
by Larry Geller
At last, an explanation is in for the pig poop explosions at barns in the Midwest that have plagued commercial pig farmers. In the latest incident, 1,500 pigs died and one worker was injured in an explosion in September 2011 in a barn in Iowa.
What? You haven’t been following this story? Are you a vegetarian or something?
If not, you soon may be.
![Explosion_thumb[1]](http://lh3.ggpht.com/-L2LhmCUqOLE/TzhmHv9IBuI/AAAAAAAABvc/49UxfhXOm-Y/s1600-h/Explosion_thumb%25255B1%25255D%25255B2%25255D.gif "Explosion_thumb[1]")
Read more <here>
Marines under fire—Congressional pressure led to an unnecessary court martial
by Larry Geller
The issue of hazing in the military is important and not to be treated with anything less than the utmost seriousness. It may turn out that continued pressure from a California Congresswoman is detrimental to the Marines’ own efforts to control and eliminate hazing.
That Lance Corporal Harry Lew killed himself last April with a bullet to the head at Gowragi Patrol Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, is a fact. It’s also established that Lew fell asleep on his post that night for a fourth time and that he had apparently experienced mistreatment. But as the court martial jury established in this case, Sergeant Benjamin Johns was not responsible for the mistreatment.
In fact, he stopped it when he learned about it.
It’s reasonable to question whether Johns should have faced a court martial to begin with. In the civilian system, the prosecution must be convinced that it can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before presenting it to the grand jury (corresponding loosely to the military Article 32 hearing). If the prosecution cannot, but goes ahead anyway, that can be considered to be prosecutorial misconduct.
One of the key accusations in the Johns court martial was that he made Lew dig a foxhole as punishment. Commanders testified that they had previously ordered the squad to prepare additional “supplementary fighting positions” because certain posts lacked them. That’s a foxhole in military-speak. If witnesses testified to this at the court martial, the prosecutors could have found that out before trial. The prosecution should have known that the digging of the foxhole was necessary and for the use of all of the Marines before raising the charge that Sgt. Johns ordered it dug as punishment.
Lew was made to run two delivery errands with a sandbag on his shoulders. As witnesses testified, Johns ordered that stopped when he heard about it. Prosecutors should have been able to learn this before going into that courtroom.
The judge in this case, Colonel Michael Richardson, who was flown in for the court martial, noted during conference with the attorneys that no evidence linked Lew’s death to his treatment, and so jurors would not be told about the suicide, only that Lew could not testify himself at the court martial because he had died. Several of the jurors appeared to have heard about the circumstances of Lew’s death, however. Given the publicity stirred up by California Congresswoman Judy Chu, and the prior court martial of Lance Corporal Jacob Jacoby at the Kaneohe base, it was somewhat remarkable that all of the jurors had not heard or read about the accusations in detail. Judge Richardson questioned and instructed jurors to disregard anything they might have heard and to consider only evidence presented to them by witnesses in the courtroom.
Richardson’s instructions to the jury were not only detailed and precise, but he did not hesitate to use repetition to be sure that jurors understood not only the law but what was evidence and what was opinion. Unlike a civilian trial, the judge instructed the jury prior to closing statements by the attorneys, telling them that the closing statements were not themselves evidence, but only the attorneys’ opinion. His instruction to only consider evidence was repeated at several points starting from when the jury was seated until the jury went out to deliberate. If jurors had questions, they were able to write them down on cards and have them answered. They did so several times during the course of the trial.
Outside the courtroom, a trial by public opinion was separately underway.
Despite the supervision of a highly experienced and respected judge and the lack of evidence to support the prosecution’s case, Congresswoman Chu, who did not attend the trial, continued to blast the Marines:
'The not guilty verdict in Sergeant John's trial twists the knife even further into the wounds that were caused by Harry's hazing death,' Chu said in a written statement. 'This verdict shows that hazing in the military is not only accepted but in fact, imbedded very deeply into its culture, including the jury, which was comprised entirely of fellow Marines.'
[Daily Mail (AP), Marine sergeant cleared of hazing in death of soldier, 2/10/2012]
Hazing may or may not be embedded very deeply in military culture, but this was the wrong trial to demonstrate it. Chu’s attack on the jury seems misplaced as well. In a civilian trial, the jury would be civilian. Johns faced a jury of three officers and five enlisted men. As in a civilian trial, both the prosecution and the defense had the opportunity to challenge and remove jurors. In contrast to a civilian jury, these men were better educated and better able to evaluate the facts based on their own training and understanding of the witness’s testimony.
Bottom line, Johns did not haze Lew and no connection has been established between Johns’ orders and Lew’s later suicide. A Congresswoman’s anger doesn’t make a Marine guilty.
Criticizing the sentence meted out in the previous court martial of Lance Cpl Jacob Jacoby is fair game, however. Jacoby reached a plea deal with prosecutors under which he pleaded guilty to three charges of assaulting Lew. Charges of hazing and making threats were dropped. Jacoby, who appeared as a witness in the Johns court martial, is to be demoted one pay rank and spend 30 days in confinement.
The Jacoby plea agreement was announced only the morning of the trial, frustrating the family, which had come to Hawaii to witness justice being done.
Their frustration continues. Had Congresswoman Chu been present at the court martial she would have been in a better position to observe and perhaps appreciate its fairness. There was no plea agreement this time, and an experienced and respected judge presided.
Perhaps they expected a lynching. If so, this was the wrong defendant to begin with.
Defense attorney Thomas Bilecki commented in an interview after the trial concluded:
In this case I think this is proof positive that the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] system works. This case was unique in that you have the platoon commander, the company commander, the battalion commander, and the 1st Sergeant, all the key players in the command, who did not want this trial to go forward against Sgt. Johns. They felt that Sgt. Johns committed no crime. But what we have, is we have a politician who drew a conclusion in search of facts. Because of the unfortunate death of her nephew, Lance Cpl Harry Lew, she concluded immediately that he must have been hazed, first off, and that the hazing resulted in his death. Without ever looking at the investigation, she jumped to that conclusion, and she demanded this go to trial.
And how did she do that? By going up on Capitol Hill, going before the Senate Armed Services Committee, making sure that the two-and three-star generals involved heard from lawmakers that they need to take a stand on hazing—when this case never was hazing to begin with.
…
Once we are inside the courtroom we have an unbiased military judge, we have educated panel members, both officer and enlisted, and we were able to push out all of the extraneous pressure from the politicians and simply try the case. And this case is proof positive that the military justice system works. It’s efficient, it didn’t bend down to political pressure, it worked.And so after less than one week of trial, the jury heard all of the evidence, and at the end of the day, they came to the same conclusion that Sgt. Johns’ commanders came to nearly a year ago, that there was no crime here. This wasn’t hazing. What Sgt. Johns ordered Lance Cpl Lew to do was operationally necessary, it’s what sergeants do in the Marine Corps, it’s what sergeants do in combat in all services… and at the end of the day the jury found him not guilty. The system works.
The third Marine to be court martialled will be Lance Cpl Carlos Orozco III. A date has not yet been set. The charge is assault. Orozco is accused of stepping on Lew, pouring sand in his face, humiliation and mistreatment. Still, there is no accusation that anyone caused Lew’s suicide.
Congresswoman Judy Chu will likely not be pleased no matter what result that trial brings.
The use of a plea agreement in the case of Lance Cpl Jacoby will remain controversial. The subject of plea agreements itself is a huge issue in criminal justice. Here in Hawaii we recently saw the owners of Aloun Farms, accused of human trafficking, negotiate a plea agreement and plead guilty only to have that agreement tossed out by the federal judge. When their case finally went to trial, it was aborted due to prosecutorial error. Was justice done? Nothing was settled with regard to the charges one way or the other, and the alleged victims have not received restitution and likely never will.
So what’s with these plea agreements?
The replacement of trial by jury with negotiated plea agreements
Plea agreements are nothing new. By the mid 19th century, plea deals replaced trial by jury in this country to such an extent that guilty pleas overall accounted for 90 percent of all felony convictions (up from around 50 percent). Of course, in the mid 19th century, trials were unprofessionally run, often with no representation for the accused and presided over by judges who were not trained in the law. It can be argued that one bad system simply replaced another.
The problem with plea deals in the modern day is that they short-circuit the now highly professional system of trial by jury and reduce it to deal making between prosecutors and the accused. It is reasonable to say that the systematic adoption of plea bargaining in this country has changed criminal justice from a process of fact-finding and proof of guilt to one in which the defendant has to weigh his ability to resist the overwhelming pressure of prosecutors to put him away regardless of guilt or innocence.
Certainly, when a plea deal is accepted, the accused achieves the objective of a shorter sentence than would have resulted had the case gone to trial and were all charges proven. On the other hand, prosecutors can overcharge in order to create fear in the accused of unbearably long sentences. The acceptance of a deal, with shorter sentences than the maximum, is then open to public criticism of excessive leniency.
Instead of trial by jury, the accused is tried by relatives of the victims and by public outcry. By the nature of plea agreements, the outcry is that justice has not been done, that the sentence meted out is too short.
On the other hand, that plea deals and lenient prosecution may be used to shield police and the military from serving deserved sentences is a valid concern. The public perception of American justice as treating violent men in uniform as privileged is reinforced continually. What does it say about justice when police escape severe penalties even when they gun down unarmed African-Americans on video, or shoot a man point-blank on a BART train platform, or attack an unarmed man in a hail of 51 bullets in New York City on his wedding day? What does it say to the world when the perpetrators of a massacre in Haditha escape responsibility? While trial by newspaper has no place in our system of justice, the news is very good at identifying the trend. And that trend is that those in uniform may not be held responsible no matter how heinous their crime.
“Copping a plea” is an expression indicating that justice is malleable for some.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Need your calls or emails to get these good government bills heard
by Larry Geller
You folks out in Disappeared News readerland were very effective in driving a stake through the heart of that zombie bill that would have damaged public access television. I haven’t had a chance to write about that, but through phone calls and emails, the evil bill has been killed dead again. May it stay that way.
Now here’s something positive you can help with. There are a number of campaign finance bills that deserve a hearing. Of course, legislators may not want their cookie jars taken away, but these are all good government bills that I hope you agree we should support.
Unless there is great pressure, these bills will go into that giant septic tank under the State Capitol.
The list is below. Could you please call or email Senator Clayton Hee and ask that these bills be heard? Do so right away, since a crossover deadline is looming and time is short. His phone number is 586-7330 and his email is senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov . If you’re shy, call in the evening and just leave a message, but please call. Ask that these bill number be heard by his committee.
Together we can make it happen!
SB2989 - Improves the publicly-funded elections pilot program (Referral: JDL/PGM, WAM)
SB2954 - Increases disclosure for lobbying (Referral: JDL, WAM)
SB2953 and SB2552 - Improves transparency for independent expenditures in campaigns (Both referred to: JDL)
SB2561 - Prohibits campaign fundraisers during the legislative session (Referral: JDL)
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Hazing trial of Kaneohe Marine so far fails to make points necessary to convict
by Larry Geller
Continuing where I left off, just so I don’t have to repeat all the background:
The first real day of the court martial of Sgt. Benjamin Johns began this morning with the judge's announcement of revised wording for one of the charges. The government agrees now that it must prove that Sgt. Johns imposed unlawful punishment on Lance Cpl Lew or that Johns had subordinates imposed unlawful punishment on Lew.
A jury was finally seated after three panel members were dismissed on defense challenges. The defense initially raised a blanket challenge to several jurors who had learned or read about the Lew suicide and the alleged hazing through the news. Several had said that they learned about it from Google News. The defense argued that half the jury would be aware of details of the suicide and half would not. That challenge was denied by Judge Michael Richardson, citing precedent.
Judge Richardson reminded jurors during voir dire (the questioning of prospective jurors by a judge and attorneys in court) that although this case involves the treatment of Lance Cpl Lew, he is not available as a witness and that the manner of his death is not involved in this case. He noted that the three cases together had received both extensive press and Internet coverage and asked jurors if they believe that these reports are completely accurate and true. None did. [So much for all of our best efforts on this side of the keyboard!]
Judge Richardson reminded an individual juror during questioning that Lew’s death has been determined, as a matter of law, to have no bearing on this case. To another juror he instructed that the suicide he read about is not relevant to this case. He also asserted that the convening authority (the government) has no influence in this courtroom.
Unlike a civilian jury, the number ultimately seated can be variable, with a minimum of five. After challenges, eight jury members remained—three officers, who were seated in the front row of the jury box, and five enlisted men. Each was provided with cards to fill out if they wished to ask questions, and several took advantage of them during the course of the day.
During opening statements the prosecution displayed images of the battle scene, a roughly triangular area in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, about the size of a football field. The jury was told that witnesses will demonstrate that Sgt. Johns woke up Lew and that Johns was pissed. Lew was yanked out of his foxhole and subsequently sent on two trips to deliver supplies with sandbags on his shoulders. Lew was made to dig a foxhole.
The defense offered that one of the central issues in the case is whether a squad leader in Helmand Province has the ability to order a soldier to dig a supplemental fighting position under battle conditions. He described Sgt. Johns as a battle-tested, experienced Marine, one of the five-percenters—a Marine who could be trusted with this dangerous mission. The attorney noted that there was intelligence that the position could be overrun by Taliban. He said that Sgt. Johns and his men saw more battle in a short time there than many soldiers will see in their entire careers—this was not Camp Victory in Iraq.
He noted that Sgt. Johns depended on Lew, but that Lew fell asleep not one, two or three times, but four times. When Johns depended on him, Lew was sleeping. He said that Lew fell asleep when there was intelligence the camp could be overrun, endangering the lives of his fellow Marines.
Did Sgt. Johns make the right decision? Defense said he did. He had asked Lew if he could stay awake and Lew promised that he could, yet not one hour into his shift, Lew is asleep. He said it was not Johns who pulled Lew out of his position, and that it was not Johns who ordered Lew to carry a sandbag from one position to another. When he heard about it, Johns had it stopped immediately, he said. Johns had to make this Marine productive, and there were two supplemental fighting positions to be dug. It would take Lew an hour or an hour and a half to dig one, and afterwards he could sleep.
The defense asserted that what took place was not hazing, it was a squad leader doing what he needed to do. And so this opening statement, by Honolulu attorney Timothy J. Bilecki, effectively set the scene that the prosecution would have to navigate during the trial.
Four witnesses were called. It seemed to this observer that the first three, at least, could be described as supporting the defendant’s decision process and his integrity, and under questioning, spoke highly of his leadership. Were this a civilian trial, I would wonder why the prosecution called witnesses who would not fully support the theory of the case, who didn’t respond “correctly.”
This is the first opportunity I’ve had to attend a court martial. I’ve noticed some differences over civilian trials which I do attend. I am very impressed with the way Judge Richardson has conducted the proceedings. His instructions to the jury, for example, have been precise and detailed, and he does not hesitate to repeat as necessary. He is doing everything possible to allow jurors to participate as the law intends, and to be fair to both the defendant and to the government. He addressed potential issues that could arise because the jurors are part of a system also enveloping the defendant.
Indeed, I had thought about the military jury quite a bit. In a civilian case, when a trial is over, the jury pretty much dissolves and goes home, and they’re forgotten. A military jury has to go back into a smaller world where there could be repercussions for their decision. Also, as in a case like this, many would have had combat experience. Fighting and defending a position in Helmand Province, as the defendant and witnesses had to do, was a form of hell, and the jurors know it. As they were shown pictures of the battle situation (Post Canada, Post America, Post Mexico, Post Australia), who knows what images were conjured up in their minds, even if they were instructed not to have preconceptions about the case.
Justice has to be for everyone involved, at least as an objective. Certainly, a man is dead, and justice calls for those responsible to be punished. It also calls for the exoneration of those not responsible. Even should Congress hold hearings, it can’t change that basic principle. Nor does the fact that one soldier pleaded guilty under conditions of a plea agreement implicate another.
From what we’ve learned so far, Lew was taken off of sentry duty and given other activities that he could perform and stay awake. The jury will decide if they were punishment that amounts to hazing or reasonable assignments, and if Sgt. Johns ordered or was aware of the actions and did not stop them. There is at least one more day of the trial during which the facts may come out.
Was there a possible medical explanation for the sleeping?
After listening to the arguments, I feel strongly that there could have been some medical situation around the suicide that can no longer be examined at this point, and certainly could not have been dealt with under severe battlefield conditions. Lew fell asleep on post not once, not twice, not three times, but four times. He seemed to be a young man eager to achieve, from accounts I’ve heard. Certainly, we can’t know his mindset when he killed himself, but we also don’t know if he might have been anemic enough (for example) to not be able to stay awake even if he tried his darndest. He must have known he was in trouble already after the first few incidents, yet he fell asleep again. Why? Could he control it? Did anyone think of checking for a possible medical cause for the sleeping?
I just want to put this out here—it may never appear anywhere else.
There will be no lynching in second Marine hazing court martial
by Larry Geller
Lance Cpl. Harry Lew's suicide in Afghanistan after alleged hazing by superiors has raised awareness of the problem of hazing in the military.
Lew's aunt, Rep. Judy Chu, has demanded a Congressional investigation. She and other family members are in Honolulu to attend the court martial of Sgt. Benjamin Johns, one of three Marines facing various charges in connection with Lew’s suicide.
The first Marine charged in the case received a sentence of 30 days confinement and a reduction in pay. Lance Cpl. Jacob Jacoby agreed to a plea agreement under charges of hazing and making threats were dropped. The family believes that justice was not done.
But there will be no lynching in this second trial. Sgt. Johns is not being charged with causing Lew’s death. His charges are dereliction of duty and hazing. According to his defense attorney, Timothy J. Bilecki of Honolulu, Sgt. Johns was in the center of a triangular combat formation in Afghanistan and did what he needed to do in a responsible manner.
The trial was to begin Monday but the jury could not be seated. Ten minutes before the trial was to start, the government changed the theory of the case, and this left the defense uncertain what they were defending against. The government was to respond to the court by 4:30 p.m. yesterday.
The charges faced by the third defendant will be different again.
Lew committed suicide after alleged beatings and humiliation after he fell asleep four times on watch. The series of three trials and the attention brought by his family will put national focus onto the issue of hazing, but the controversy over justice will also be strong.
Hawaii campaign spending restrictions go to the judge in federal court
by Larry Geller
Quick summary: Yesterday the case of A-1 Lectrician was argued to its conclusion in federal court before judge J. Michael Seabright. Both sides engaged in detailed back-and-forth debate with Judge Seabright so fast that the court reporter had trouble keeping up.
This case involves contributions which plaintiffs wanted to make above the limits set by Hawaii’s campaign spending laws. Plaintiffs noted that they are not making a facial challenge to the laws, that is, the case involves the ability of these particular plaintiffs to make their contributions.
Probably the effect will be the same: anyone else willing to contribute above the limits of current law will be able to do so, if the judge agrees.
Judge Seabright took the case under advisement and did not say when he will issue his order.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Kaneohe Bay Marine court in spotlight as family of hazed Marine alleges leniency in sentencing
by Larry Geller
Lance Cpl. Harry Lew committed suicide in Afghanistan immediately after a beating by his fellow Marines. His family is accusing the Marine Corps of leniency in sentencing the first Marine to go on trial last week, Lance Cpl. Jacob Jacoby, received a sentence of 30 days confinement and was knocked down one pay rank, but remains in the Corps.
Lew’s family thinks the sentence was too lenient and have called for Congressional hearings. They said that hazing is common in the military. Common targets include women and those of Asian-American or African-American ancestry.
The Lew family plans to return to Hawaii on Monday to attend the court-martial of the second Marine accused in the case, Sgt. Benjamin Johns. The trial will take place at Kaneohe Marine Corps Base tomorrow, Monday, February 6, 2012.
Jacoby was allowed to agree to a plea agreement announced only the day of his special court martial. As a result of the plea, the jury was not allowed to hear of the hazing. Jacoby pleaded guilty only to assault. There has been no word as to whether Johns will be given a plea agreement tomorrow.
Help kill “zombie” bill, save public access television in Hawaii
by Larry Geller
Can you testify on an amendment you haven’t seen? Rep. Bob Herkes, Chair of the House Corporate Consumer Protection Committee believes you can. To prove it, he has resurrected a dead bill over this Super Bowl weekend. Your action is needed to drive a stake into this bad bill.
Can you testify when the posted bill status says “decision making?” No, you can’t, but the text of the hearing notice says you can. Of course, since the status message says “decision making,” there is no reason to look at the hearing notice. Gotcha!
Since there may be little testimony against the bill, the Chair will direct his committee members to pass it.
Whatever it says, we, the people, haven’t seen it. We’re being swindled.
Why should you testify? There are some emails circulating. A snip:
Your Free Speech is at Risk! As many of you know, Public Access Television is under a huge threat! For Oahu, Olelo Community Media will have to shut down its community media centers and suffer a 67% funding cut. The public's ability to have an alternative voice will be shut down and Hawaii's corporate media dominated airwaves will prevail. Of course, this may be because we have been so successful in using public access TV to call attention to important issues.
Public access television must be very effective to warrant this devious action to shut it down. Help protect Free Speech in Hawaii! Oppose HB2652!
This is a dirty trick, folks, and the public is the loser if CPC committee members don’t stand up to their powerful chair. See the end of this article for talking points and contact info for committee members.
Zombie bills at the Hawaii State Legislature
Strange things can happen at the Hawaii State Legislature when no one is looking. This Super Bowl weekend was a great opportunity for shenanigans since the public attention would be on the game, not on the heist.
There are several bills this session that threaten public access television. One was HB2652 that would have cut the funding to `Olelo, Akaku and all public access television by two thirds. The bill was introduced by Big Island Representative Herkes and scheduled for a hearing without much time to get much testimony organized. Despite that, testimony appeared, most in strong opposition to this bad bill.
So the Chair deferred the bill.Yay! Dead so soon, no need to follow it though the Legislature.
Here’s the death notice:
“Deferred” almost always means “dead.” But veteran Capitol watchers know that nothing is really dead until the final gavel is struck in May. And so, new life was somehow poured into this bill, out of public view. It became a “zombie,” set to walk again on Monday with the public not aware of the new language.
This is pretty clear. The public has been given notice that decisionmaking will take place on Monday. Note that this zombification took place on Friday. But no need to testify, the public notice is for decisionmaking only. Right?
Not! This is from the bottom of the hearing notice:
It’s all crossed off, maybe because it’s a zombie and is not technically alive. Is there still a referral to FIN? That’s crossed off. What does the proposed HD1 say? Who knows.
It’s ridiculous asking for testimony on an amendment that no one has seen and hiding the request as CPC has done.
You can help drive a stake through the heart of this bill. From the circulating email, here is what you can do, but act quickly, as they say:
Go to this URL. Type in your opposition to the bill.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2652
Here are some talking points, adapted from the circulating email, but better to use your own words. Don’t just cut-and-paste or they’ll ignore it.
- This bill will devastate public access television, which has been very successful in Hawaii. Hawaii is viewed as a leader across the nation.
- The bill is financially irresponsible.
- The committee action is deceptive. If public testimony is invited, adequate notice should be given. The public needs to see the amendment, or how can we write testimony?
Here is contact information for members of the CPC committee. Please call/email any or all of them on Monday, as early as you can, but call before about 2 p.m. at the latest. Leave a message opposing this. If one of these representatives is your representative, please say you are a constituent.
Rep. Mele Carroll 586-6790 repcarroll@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Gibert Keith-Agaran 586-6210 repkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Angus McKelvey 586-6160 repmckelvey@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Joe Souki 586-9444 repsouki@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Ryan I. Yamane 586-6150 repyamane@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Tom Brower 586-8520 repbrower@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Rida T.R. Cabanilla 586-6080 repcabanilla@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Clift Tsuji 586-8480 reptsuji@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Denny Coffman 586-9605 repcoffman@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Corinne W.L. Ching 586-9415 repching@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Ken Ito 586-8470 repito@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Barbara C. Marumoto 586-6310 repmarumoto@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran 586-6210 repkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Cynthia Thielen 586-6481 repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Sylvia Luke 586-8530 repluke@capitol.hawaii.gov
Burning the taxpayer’s budget in Honolulu Chinatown
by Larry Geller
We walked to our favorite dim sum restaurant, Tai Pan, in the Chinese Cultural Plaza for a late breakfast this morning. Yum! It was crowded, indicating a possible cultural divide. Isn’t everyone supposed to be glued to their TV sets right now watching football? Apparently, not everyone.
On the way out we walked along the river. What a nice spot that could be, if the city would do its job and maintain the place. The “disintegrating bridge” is still unpainted and crumbling. If APEC couldn’t get repairs done, I guess nothing will. Chinatown “Stonehenge” is just as ugly as ever. A couple of the light fixtures on the posts are broken and filled with litter. But the lights are on, as you can almost see in the above pic. Also, the streetlights along the river were still on, in broad daylight—except for the ones that have burned out.
Hawaii has the highest electricity rates in the nation. But the city just dips into our wallets to pay its bills. So we pay to keep Chinatown lit up during the daytime.
The space occupied by the ugly posts could be filled with tables and umbrellas and help generate badly needed income (and create jobs!) in these hard economic times. It could be a family-friendly place to gather at all hours of the day instead of an ugly wasteland.
That is, if anyone in City Hall cared.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Hawaii campaign contributions case back in federal court on Monday
by Larry Geller
Hawaii, as far as it is from the US Supreme Court, has nevertheless been lapped by the wave of campaign law challenges resulting from the Citizen United case. Monday may move us briefly into the national spotlight as state laws that restrict campaign contributions by Hawaii plaintiffs are tested in federal court.
Oral arguments before Judge J. Michael Seabright are scheduled for Monday morning 9:00-11:00 in the case known here as A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc. This is the case brought by plaintiffs Jimmy Yamada and Russell Stewart (the two other plaintiffs) who wished to contribute S2,500 to the Aloha Family Alliance, a Political Action Committee, before the 2010 election.
In October, 2010, Judge Seabright issued a partial injunction so that the contribution could be made before the election.
The plaintiffs will be represented once again by attorney Randy Elf, and the State by Deputy Attorney General Charlene Aina, with others likely to be present on both sides as well.
I reported at that time on the dynamics of the argument in the courtroom. In part:
The heart of the hearing took place at about 11:00 a.m. in a spirited back-and-forth between Judge Seabright and attorney Elf. It was clear that Seabright had studied related cases from other circuits as well as Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that blew the lid off of corporate campaign contributions. During the discussion Elf demonstrated a command of the core issues that was impressive, and which helped Seabright to clarify his own understanding.
[Judge Seabright will issue partial injunction Thursday removing local firm’s campaign contribution limit, 10/1/2010]
On Monday, Seabright has before him motions for summary judgment both by the plaintiffs and by the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission. Both sides have submitted extensive briefs, which the judge has already studied. We, as observers, may feel like New York City subway passengers waiting on a Local platform as the Express speeds by on the center tracks. We’re simply not in the stream of things (yet—see document links below for how to catch up).
Let’s move from 2010 to the present. The plaintiffs have made their contribution, and here we are, again in an election year. Hawaii law still blocks them from contributing. The arguments that you will hear if you attend on Monday will largely revolve around HRS §11-355, the section of Hawaii Revised Statutes that prohibits campaign contributions from city or state contractors. Prior arguments have covered most of the rest of the matters raised by each side.
As a catch-up, here is a snip from Plaintiff’s brief:
Before the 2010 general election, when A-1 was not a government contractor, it contributed to several Hawaii state-legislature candidates and seeks to do so again in 2012. However, now A-1 is a state contractor.
A-1 has a policy not to “buy favors” from elected officials, and it wants to make contributions, while it is a government contractor, to candidates – like those to whom it contributed in 2010 – who do not decide whether A-1 receives contracts and who do not oversee the contracts. However, Hawaii’s ban on candidate and noncandidate committees’ receiving contributions from government contractors, HRS.11-355, means A-1 may not contribute to candidates. A-1 will contribute to candidates only if a court enjoins the ban.
Here is the complete section from the HRS:
[§11-355] Contributions by state and county contractors prohibited. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who enters into any contract with the State, any of the counties, or any department or agency thereof either for the rendition of personal services, the buying of property, or furnishing of any material, supplies, or equipment to the State, any of the counties, any department or agency thereof, or for selling any land or building to the State, any of the counties, or any department or agency thereof, if payment for the performance of the contract or payment for material, supplies, equipment, land, property, or building is to be made in whole or in part from funds appropriated by the legislative body, at any time between the execution of the contract through the completion of the contract, to:
(1) Directly or indirectly make any contribution, or promise expressly or impliedly to make any contribution to any candidate committee or noncandidate committee, or to any candidate or to any person for any political purpose or use; or
(2) Knowingly solicit any contribution from any person for any purpose during any period.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a), this section does not prohibit or make unlawful the establishment or administration of, or the solicitation of contributions to, any noncandidate committee by any person other than the state or county contractor for the purpose of influencing the nomination for election, or the election of any person to office.
(c) For purposes of this section, "completion of the contract" means that the parties to the government contract have either terminated the contract prior to completion of performance or fully performed the duties and obligations under the contract, no disputes relating to the performance and payment remain under the contract, and all disputed claims have been adjudicated and are final.
This case is a challenge to five Hawaii laws, again described in Plaintiff’s briefs. Snipping and paraphrasing (and responsible for any errors I might introduce):
- A-1 challenges Hawaii’s noncandidate-committee definition, HRS.11-302, because A-1 no longer wants to bear noncandidate-committee burdens…
- If a court holds Hawaii may not or does not define A-1 as a noncandidate committee, then A-1 must comply with electioneering-communication reporting requirements. … Having to devote time to preparing and filing reports, particularly 24 hour reports, is a severe burden on A-1’s resources…
- A-1 does not want Hawaii to regulate the content of the speech itself (disclaimer requirements)
- Hawaii bans the contributions A-1 wants to make to candidates. (HRS.11-355).
- Yamada’s and Stewart’s $2500 contributions to AFA-PAC exceed Hawaii’s $1000 per-election limit on contributions.
Many of the State’s arguments relate to transparency. That is, as the State quotes in its brief asking for partial summary judgment, referring to the same part of the HRS:
"The purpose of this part is to provide transparency in the campaign finance process."
HRS § 11-301
Referring to the Citizens United case:
As recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, transparency, disclosure, and the electorate's interest in information are extremely important governmental interests, all of which justify the regulation of campaign-related speech. This Court should uphold the disclosure provisions challenged here.
Plaintiffs' challenge has four parts: (1) the definitions of "noncandidate committee" and "expenditure," (2) the electioneering communications provision, (3) the definition of "advertisement" and disclaimer requirement, and (4) the government contractors provision. The first three are disclosure laws, aimed at ensuring transparency in campaign financing. The last is specific to government contractors, and is aimed at preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.
Transparency is probably the strongest argument that states have left in dealing with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
If we listen carefully to Judge Seabright’s discussion on Monday, we may get a hint of how he might be inclined to rule. At the time Seabright issued his preliminary injunction in 2010, he worked out in rapid and efficient dialogue with attorney Elf exactly what would go into his order.
No short article can do justice to the extensive briefs. Anyone planning to attend the trial on Monday might want to read at least these two briefs to avoid being stranded on that Local platform. Right-click to download the Plaintiff’s brief here and the Defendant’s brief here. Warning: these are not the latest briefs in this case, but they provide the base material. Each side has responded, and the judge will sort it out.
