Andy Parx is a Kauai blogger with the site, "Got Windmills." Click here to visit.

By Andy Parx

Though you’d never know it via statewide media, the biggest trial in years on the Big Island has not only the corporate Hawai`i Tribune Herald’s attention but that of various news-blogs that have had blow by blow daily coverage by cannabis activist Matt Rifkin and others.

The two sides have rested in the trial of Rastafarian Rev. Nancy Harris of the Sacred Truth Mission on marijuana cultivation charges after Harris presented a defense based on her religious practice under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

But the trial took a turn yesterday that ought to concern not just journalists but everyone when Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Damerville subpoenaed Tiffany Hunt Edwards, a free lance journalist who hosts the Big Island Chronicle (BIC) “blog.” and has reported for various Hawai`i Island publications including the Big Island Weekly (BIW).

Early yesterday Edwards wrote:

From newswoman to newsmaker — Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Damerville “rush” subpoenaed me to testify in the religious use of marijuana trial.

This is a first in my journalism career.

I’m to appear at Third Circuit Court this afternoon to testify in the trial of Nancy Harris who is accused of commercial promotion of marijuana and is using a religious marijuana defense.

At issue is my June 2009 coverage of the case, specifically a free-lance article I wrote for the Big Island Weekly.

Although the trial ended without Edwards testifying the subpoena itself appears to be a blatant violation of the Act 210, the Hawai`i State News Media Privilege law, commonly known as the reporters’ “shield law.” Read the rest of this entry »

By Matt Rifkin
Rev Nancy trial day 7 part 2
2:48pm…Jury, Judge Hara return…
Damerville begins…
What is your birth name? Nancy Wade. When did you change your name, when did you marry Mr. Harris? Around 1982-84, not sure. Have you gone by that name since then? Largely. Largely? My ordination certificate says Wade. Yet you used Harris here?
Objection…badgering…sustained
You were ordained in 2000? Yes. As part of your ordination, you chose the name Wade? Yes. Why use that name? Read the rest of this entry »

By Matt Rifkin
Rev Nancy trial day 7
10:36am – running late
15-20 supporters in the gallery…print media, bloggers, video camera crew…all present…
Jury, Judge Hara enter.
Sulla calls next witness…defendant Rev Nancy Harris…
Sulla going over basic questions…born 1955, Columbus, Ohio. Went to college at 30, had been poor and couldn’t support family. Took ACT test, got a scholarship at community college. AS in Math, then college for MS science and math education. Fellowship at University of Arkansas, MS science and math. Got hired at UA as lecturer, teaching math to sight impaired and disabled students. She can read Braille. Taught from 1994 as a grad student thru 2004. Taught calculus 1 & 2, while raising a family. At some point learned about a church using cannabis as a sacrament, around 1999. Her family had gone through a traumatic event, and she was lost, low, no spiritual grounding. Working, but spiritually empty. Had been a using cannabis recreationally, yet, also found connection to higher source. Raised Christian, fallen to agnostic, no God feeling. Knew there was a higher power, cannabis helped make that connection. Met Rev Tom Brown, the minister at the First Church of the Majai, Fayetteville, AR, where he had been released from jail for the activities of his church. Services were held in a public park, which she attended from 1999 until the founding of STM. Read the rest of this entry »

By Matt Rifkin
Court resumes at 9:58am, jury, Judge Hara enter. Detective Prudencio on the stand. Sulla to finish his cross examination.
Exhibit 203, 6th item, two signs…shown to jury. One is torn, or cut. Not listed as such in the evidence receipt. Prudencio doesn’t recall it being ripped. Sulla tries to pin point when Prudencio arrived at the scene, 23:15 is noted as the start of evidence recovery. Who else what there? Don’t exactly recall, but Bello, Webber, Fernandez and Shimabukuro. Was the scene under control? Yes. Did you note other officers damaging other items when you left? No
Did Officer Webber, who was lead officer, ask you to collect the photos/business cards that were stuck in some of the plants? Did you know who the photo was of? Yes, Ken Slaughter. Were those items in the reports, why didn’t Webber have you collect them? No and I don’t know why.
Shows photo to jury. Whose name is on the envelope? Kena Miyamoto Slaughter. You saw no one at the property? Yes. You didn’t collect this item? No. Was there evidence of other people living there? Yes, I believe so. You collected a receipt that was two years old, with Rev Nancy Harris on it? Yes. Where? In the greenhouse on a table
Sulla finishes. Damerville to redirect.
You testified about pots? Yes. There were more pots with marijuana in them? Yes, only took a few pots as evidence.
Technical issues posting the photo on the screen…Damerville, “so much for our $90 million investment”
The enlarged photo, you reviewed before coming to court, can you read anything? Yes, Kena. But you did not recover this as evidence, because you were not directed to? Yes
Looking at the torn sign. Do you think a razor did that? No. You started collecting evidence at 11:15pm, about how long does it take? 2 hours maybe. What do you do when you leave a scene? Try to secure as best as possible. Do people sometimes trash a place after the police leave? Yes
Some questions about TV show CSI and getting DNA from cigarette butts.
Questions about officers leaving the police force, some go back to the mainland, others get jobs locally.
Sulla objects…Hara overrules…make this the last question.
10:37am Damerville finishes redirect…witness excused subject to recall
State calls Rev Kenny Miyamoto Slaughter Read the rest of this entry »

By Matt Rifkin

Rev Nancy trial day 4 (See Rifkin’s day three coverage here.)

It was a slow, methodical day. Prosecutor Damerville is showing the presence of marijuana that was found on the property. Two evidence custodians. Boxes, documents, holes from rodents. Confirming items that were in yesterday’s photographs. Civilian criminalist, tests confiscated plants, confirming they are marijuana. Technical discussion about testing methods. The day closes with the start of testimony from Officer Prudencio, the evidence recovery officer.

Damerville implied that after Prudencio, he would likely call only one more witness. So, the State seems ready to rest its case on Monday (by lunch, perhaps?).

Judge Hara instructed the jury to arrive at 9am on Monday, as he wants to get a prompt start to the week.

Following are my notes from today, for those who want the blow by blow. Read the rest of this entry »

(Editor’s note:  Matt Rifkin, who leads the Big Island chapter of Amercians for Safe Access and Friends for Justice, has sat in on the religious use of marijuana trial against the Rev. Nancy Harris each day since the jury selection process commenced on Monday. Following are the notes he took today, day three, which he has shared with Big Island Chronicle and others.)

By Matt Rifkin

The jury is called in at 10am (I didn’t know we do an “all rise” for the jury too.). Judge Hara arrives soon thereafter (“all rise”). He goes over an outline of trial, and other instructions. Preliminary instructions are done and all potential witnesses leave the courtroom.

Prosecutor Damerville makes opening argument. I have not seen him do this before, but he seems very low key. He says, the state will prove Rev. Nancy is guilty of the charges of possessing plants, dried marijuana and paraphernalia. At the end of a long driveway the police found marijuana plants, arrested Rev Nancy, got a warrant and found more plants. On her property she had signs saying her church, Sacred Truth Mission, saying they could grow and consume “copious” amount of marijuana. The jury must return a verdict “that is true.” And, before you knew it, his opening argument was done. Didn’t seem overly strong or impassioned. But, I don’t know, it could be his Southern, gentlemanly style.

The defense decides to make their opening argument after the Prosecutor rests their case.

Damerville calls first witness…Officer Peter Fernandez, rank 3, Hilo vice squad. 12 year veteran of the force, in Vice since April 2006. Worked in a grocery store before becoming police. Read the rest of this entry »

By Toni Robert
How much public testimony is enough? How many taxpayer dollars is enough? When is redundancy costly, ineffectual and detrimental to the tax paying folk of Hawaii County? 

It was just a year ago so many of us in the Building Industry were working through the same processes. In spring of 2010 the DPW held two public meetings, one in Hilo and one in Kona, to discuss the concerns of those who would be directly impacted by the implementation of the ‘then approved’ 2006 IECC. Points were all well articulated from the public attendees and except for the newly appointed Building Division head, things were well understood by the various County aficionados present. There was an organized questions and answers with everyone having their opportunity to speak their point of view. What we were told as it all concluded was ‘We have heard you. We have your ideas. We will go back and discuss this.’ When asked if they would consider a ‘coalition’ formed from some in the audience the idea was welcomed by the County reps. What happened to all of this?

Taxpayer dollars were spent initially in several County Council meetings, consequential public testimony, heads of many departments within the County’s ‘building’ and ‘planning’ offices were paid to stand by for testimony and to attend the Council and Public meetings. Some during ‘off’ hours. One could understand the expenditures in 2010 because it was ostensibly to bring rational thinking to the implementation of a building code that reflects the different environments this island presents in residential design. Imagine the shock to the public when Building Codes, UNCHANGED, were presented to the County Council for approval 2011 and the Council voted to approve!!!! Granted, there are a couple of new council members but the majority of the Council remains the same from 2010 to 2011 and they KNOW what they requested and they KNOW what was done. Why did they not ask questions as to why the CHANGES that they clearly understood needed to be done were not manifest in the Code they voted to approve in 2011? 

As of Wednesday, August 17, the Council has voted to RESCIND its vote to approve. Instead, they want PUBLIC MEETINGS, again!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING? The Council members and Director for DPW, Warren Lee, need to sit down and have a face to face about this ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars and time. All of the same industry professionals have taken off time, lost dollars themselves in a really recessive economy which has hit the residential construction industry hard, to testify in 2010 and AGAIN to persuade the Council to reconsider the same old bill for all the same reasons in 2011! Such a waste of valuable resources. This work has already been done. The code need only be updated to reflect the reality. This year the whole public has been shown disrespect by tax paid civil servants! It would seem a recalcitrant attitude somewhere along the line is making itself manifest at the cost of the taxpayers. I would suggest at this point the Mayor be besieged with letters of complaint. He is ultimately responsible for the way tax dollars are spent and responsible for the individuals who wield the power to comply with the Council whose clear direction last year was to ‘fix’ the code to bring it in line with local building needs. The SAFE ROOM was chief among the complaints and was clearly argued as fully unnecessary for East County residential. 

Please write your council representative and make sure they understand the ramifications of a vote to accept the codes as they are currently written.
(Toni Robert lives in Puna and blogs at write-matters.com. Her writing above has been republished here with permission.)

By Hugh Clark

 by Delia Montgomery

You can support current pending state laws to label genetically engineered foods. See a list of Hawaii legislation supported by the Organic Consumers Association below. Scroll down the OCA page to Hawaii for an active link to each item.

SB 1099 – Taro Security
SB 713 – Genetically Engineered Crops; Required Labeling
SB 712 – Department of Agriculture; Notification; Genetically Engineered Plants
SB 711 – Genetically Engineered Fish; Labeling
HB 1534 – H.B. No. 1534 – Hawaii’s GMO Truth-in-Labeling Bill
HB 591 – Taro Security
HB 434 – Genetically-Engineered Food; Labeling
HB 216 – Food Labeling; Genetically Engineered Material

OCA provides a list of key bills in congress as well.

RELATED POST:

Water and Politics

Amongst other things, blog contributor Delia Montgomery, d/b/a Chíc Eco, is an agent for environmental designers and artists. She holds a burning desire to witness organic agriculture and sustainable manufacturing on Hawaiian islands.

By Richard “Scotchy” Henderson

Article IV 0f The Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides that beginning in 1981 and every 10th year thereafter shall be reapportionment years. Section 4 of Article IV states that,” The commission shall allocate the total number of members of each house of the state legislature being reapportioned among the four basic island units…using the total number of permanent residents in each of the basic island units and computed by the method known as the method of equal proportions; except that no basic island unit shall receive less than one member in each house”.

At their meeting in Honolulu on June 28, 2011 the appointed Reapportionment Commission voted to INCLUDE military and non-resident military dependents in the population base. The vote was 8 to 1, with Commissioner Takitani from Maui, the only Neighbor Island commissioner voting “No”. This vote was taken following an executive session. Since that time the Commission has consistently declined to disclose to the public the advice it received from the Dept. of the Attorney General with respect to the constitutionality of its decision. Even though the commission has the authority to convene in executive session, I believe that it is bad public policy to deny the public the discussion and reasoning that supports their decision on such a major issue. That ultimate question is whether the population increase on the Big Island (28% since 2001) will be recognized by the addition of an another state senator in 2012, or whether that Senate seat is assigned to an area on central Oahu which has a large military population. (Oahu currently has 18 senators and the Neighbor Islands 7).

On July 18, responding to a formal request by Big Island State Representative Bob Herkes on the Hawaii Constitution’s meaning of “permanent resident”, Deputy Attorney General Charleen Aina delivered a seven page comprehensive opinion on the same subject to Rep Herkes. Rep Herkes personally delivered a copy of the opinion to the Commission which was again meeting in executive session. The opinion became public and notably held that it was likely that the Hawaii Supreme Court would rule that “to the extent they are identifiable, nonresident college students and non-resident military members and their dependents cannot properly be included in the reapportionment population base the Commission uses to draw the legislative district lines this year”. (The military has always cooperated in the past with sufficient information necessary to identify service members and their dependents in Hawaii).

The reapportionment commission is bound by the laws of Hawaii. It cannot makeup its own laws. Our constitution says redistricting must be based on the number of “permanent residents”. That term was approved by the people of Hawaii by a 2 to 1 referendum margin in 1992. Ten years ago, the 2001 commission also started out “wrong” on this same issue, but after public hearings Chairman Wayne Minami exercised necessary leadership & changed his vote to exclude military.  That position prevailed 5 to 4. Read the rest of this entry »

by Delia Montgomery

My drive to help aspiring designers who live in Hawaii is the basis for this post. We know most residents on Big Island go through an ordeal for proper services to birth a child. Apparently, it’s no easier for a student to find teachers to support their choice of artistic passion.

Of course it would be grand if students could be where the teachers are, but most don’t have the choice. My recommendations do require a computer with online access, so be prepared.
Read the rest of this entry »

by Delia Montgomery

The competition winner of Chic Eco’s 2009 Best Eco-luxury Infant Clothes Designer poll was Carrie Jekogian for LolaBabiez Organics. The announcement was written on FeelGoodStyle by Important Media Network.

I’m so sad to report that Carrie’s site has been down for a year and the phone number was disconnected. No clues as to what happened, but I hope you read about her and praises from her clients. (Because FGS was formerly run by Green Options Media, the comments were lost in conversion). Let’s hope she simply had to break from being a working teacher super-mom while running a business!

Our rapid global changes are effecting everyone as each individual seeks a balance between work and spirit. Hence, I can’t bring you an update about designer Carrie, but am compelled to help aspiring designers who live in Hawaii. For such individuals, I have some designer tools to share in my next post.

RELATED POSTS:
Chíc Eco — Best Eco-luxury Infant Clothes Designer Competition: Jennifer Murphy for Chapter One Organics
Chíc Eco — Best Eco-luxury Infant Clothes Designer Competition: Rachel Hart for Miss Sugar Pops
Chíc Eco — Best Eco-luxury Infant Clothes Designer Competition
Chíc Eco — Best Eco-luxury Infant Clothes Designer Competition: A Look at Sckoon Organics
Ever Gotten Organic Cotton?

Amongst other things, blog contributor Delia Montgomery, d/b/a Chíc Eco, is an agent for environmental designers and artists. She holds a burning desire to witness organic cotton, and other sustainable resources, to be farmed on Hawaiian islands. Please contact Delia if you wish to be known as a local-eco farmer or designer-crafts person.

By Cheryl King

I attended the third County Redistricting Commission Meeting held in Hilo on June 24th via video conference at the West Hawaii Civic Center and remain somewhat perplexed, bothered, and frustrated by the proceedings.

Although I had thought the primary purpose of this meeting was to provide the Redistricting Commissioners with training in the use of the Esri Redistricting Software, they had very little time left for this purpose due to a late meeting start, the time it took to discuss the other items on the agenda, and intermittent problems with the video transmission of the proceedings.

The problems with the video transmission were important as both Dru Kanuha and Craig “Bo” Kahui attended the meeting on the Kona side.

Even when it was working, the visuals projected from Hilo to the Kona side left a great deal to be desired.   I found out later that the county does not provide a professional camera crew for the Redistricting Meetings like it does the County Council meetings and that an inexperienced employee had been drafted to operate the camera.   There were several times that the camera was focused on someone who had just given testimony, rather than the person who was actually testifying, making it difficult to figure out just who was speaking.  Moreover, the large flat screen TV that was displaying the visuals was too small to adequately see the proceedings.  The screen was divided into three portions displaying simultaneous images from Waimea, Kona, and Hilo, which made it impossible for us to read any visuals being displayed or to clearly distinguish more than one person.  In this situation it would be far better to just eliminate the Waimea and Kona visuals at the Kona site and enlarge the picture from Hilo. Read the rest of this entry »

By Pete Hoffmann
Happy New Fiscal Year (2011-2012) to you all.  The County has managed to stumble into July and has survived the budget struggles of the past two months.  Permit me a few observations on the results and the process:

- The Mayor’s 5 May becomes effective today, 1 July.  It is a balanced budget, but doesn’t save anything as far as expenses are concerned.  It defers some liabilities.  There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as the total deferments are not too large, and we don’t encourage this as a habit.  I think we are reasonably on solid ground at least in this fiscal year, but we shouldn’t use GASB-45 as a ‘bill-payer’ again next year.  One can only wonder why the Mayor would use GASB-45 deferments as the centerpiece of his budget balancing act this year, when he was so stubbornly opposed to this same suggestion that I made previously?  If we had adopted this recommendation, we might not have had to raise property tax rates.

- Unlike a few of my Council colleagues who expressed indignation at the Corporation Counsel’s letters about the amended budget, I see this as another example of mayoral politics.  Let’s face it, the Mayor won this battle, let’s move on.  No one associated with the budget process or with the County Charter can find anything illegal in what the Council did.  Unprecedented perhaps, but hardly illegal.  County residents were treated to some political ‘smoke and mirrors’ and as a result the veto could not be overridden.

- It’s hard to fathom why the Mayor could not or would not exercise some discretion on the Council’s amended budget.  There seemed to be at least a few Council amendments that should have been ‘saved’. But it appears to many that the Mayor’s message is simply:  “do it my way or not at all”.   Sad to think this poses as effective leadership for our County. Read the rest of this entry »

By Annetta Lucero

The long awaited sentencing has occurred.  The maximum sentence potential for the attempted murder, (reduced to assault), of Noah was 1 year. The Judge handed Mr. Gomez a 6 month jail sentence. Mr. Gomez then threw a tantrum, disrespected the court and was handed an additional 6 months immediately. Richard Robert Gomez Jr. is GUILTY.   I submitted my excerpt to the Judge. If you do not know my story, please read it. If you are in a situation like this . . . leave. It’s O.K. You deserve freedom. I am here.   Honorable Judge Hara,   It was unusual and difficult for me to define the abuse I received from Richard Robert Gomez Jr. for many years. My situation was based on psychological, emotional abuse. It was a slowly evolving elimination of all that identified me as me. Constant, repetitive disdain that grew in to veiled threats. First the arts, then the friends, then the family . . . all eliminated. He then trained my children to abhor my beliefs and disrespect my opinions. I found myself apologizing and trying to “fix” myself because I refused to “fail” in my marriage and “ruin” my children’s lives. Eventually, after years of false accusations of infidelity and never ending nights of sleep deprivation, (he would not allow me to sleep unless I admitted to the numerous affairs he had manufactured in his mind.) He threatened to disappear with the children if I ever considered leaving; taking them on a boat so that I would never see them again. Near the end I had a, “no after dark”, curfew for leaving our property. Not even to the corner store for milk. One day a person rode by our house on a bicycle. I was emptying the trash. He looked in our driveway. I suffered 3 weeks of sleep deprivation accused of having an affair. Something clicked. “I cannot allow my daughter to feel comfortable with this energy. I am promoting unhealthy living to my children by trying to ‘succeed’. Today I will change this”. I sent the children to play at a friends house. After years of accommodating this man’s controlling behavior I said. “This stops today. I would like a divorce. I will not live like this ever again.” He felt my resolve to his core. He was stunned. He fell to the floor and sobbed. He sobbed and begged for some time. When he realized there was no change in my resolve he became angry. He began the name-calling and tried his methodical insults. No change. He switched to trying to convince me to commit suicide. Recommending that he would help me do it because it would be better for the children than to come from a divorced home. He looked for a rope. Suggested the rat poison. Offered anti-freeze. He was adamant. When he realized this method was not an option he chose a new plan. He became physical. He kicked me from my chair, knocking me across the kitchen. I jumped up. He threw me against a wall. He kicked my head in to the wall. I stood up. He lifted me above his head and slammed me to the floor. He carried me to our bed and attempted to strangle me. I broke free. Enraged, he ripped his own shirt in half. I stood up. He chased me around the house. I was fast. I kicked out the screen of a bedroom and jumped out. I ran. He got in his truck and roared down the street. I was running down the street and jumped behind a tree to avoid being hit. He went back to the house. It took some time for me to find a neighbor home on our desolate street. I called 911 and waited . . . and waited . . . and when the police arrived they arrested me. “Ma’am, your husband called us before you did. He reported you as the abuser. We respond to the first call.” I was beaten, bruised and had welts around my neck. I was charged and booked. I was put in a cell. Read the rest of this entry »

Pete Hoffmann

By Pete Hoffmann

Using the recent budget discussions as a background, I had hoped that the Mayor would recognize the opportunity that presented itself for establishing a cooperative relationship with the Council.  Unfortunately, that didn’t occur.  I’ll admit I’m wasn’t completely surprised, but I am disappointed that the administration resorts to “political theater” once again to resolve relatively minor budget changes.

We’ve heard on numerous occasions the Mayor clearly state that he seeks a new cooperation with the Council.  I can’t imagine a better occasion to initiate this spirit.  Consider the circumstances:  the Council managed to amend the Mayor’s budget totaling $367M by less than $11M.  That’s less than a 3% change.  Despite all the discussion and the back and forth surrounding one or two emotional topics, that alteration is quite small.  I’m sorry the Mayor didn’t call a press conference, declare victory, and thank the Council for agreeing with 97% of his budget submission.  I think 97% is a good acceptance rate.

The Mayor has indicated that his veto is not a political one but rather based on the legality of the Council’s efforts to amend the budget for $5.8M.  In that amendment, the Council directed the administration take the funds from the Other Current Expense Accounts that are scattered throughout the various departments.  The Corporation Counsel now believes that the amended budget has “numerous legal infirmities.”  I expressed my concerns regarding this amendment at the time of the budget hearings, but not on legal grounds.  Personally, I would rather have had the Council specify the source of those funds, but I voted for the amendment because the past history of such Council efforts during this administration met with no success.  On this occasion, I felt perhaps that the administration could identify the source of such funds itself.  At no time during the budget discussion, did I or other Council members believe that what we were doing was ‘illegal’, nor did we ever hear from the Corporation Counsel that such actions might be in violation of the charter.  Let’s remember, we considered this amendment on 18 May.  Now a month later, the Council is informed there could be problems.

One should also remember that in our County system, the Corporation Counsel is the lawyer for both the Mayor/administration and the County Council.  I have always wondered how you can serve the proverbial two masters at the same time, and this is an instance where this might lead to real/imagined difficulties. Read the rest of this entry »