Comments
Posted by Ryan on October 19, 2002 5:47 AM:
My votes will be "Yes" on Question 1 (I think it's a no-brainer - in fact I think most voters are surprised this isn't the current law), "No" on Question 2 (I agree with the separation of public and private schools, and find the pro-amendment ads to be misleading on that point), and "No" on Question 3 (we shouldn't be asked to give up a right before knowing what the legislature will do with it, let alone at all).
Question 3 troubles me the most. Its appearance is no surprise in the post-9/11, Ashcroft-led era, I suppose, nor is the support its getting ("How can you not support keeping more criminals off the streets?"). I deeply hope, but sadly doubt, voters will see the "They" could just as easily be "Us."
Posted by Linkmeister on October 19, 2002 7:28 AM:
Yup on #1 and Nope on #3, for virtually the same reasons Ryan has stated.
#2 bothered me when I started seeing the ads, because it was unclear as to how and from whom the bondholders would get paid interest. After reading the question in the paper the other night, and learning that the private schools themselves would be obligated to pay the interest, I decided (at least preliminarily) that I could go along with it.
Posted by mitchell on October 19, 2002 10:33 AM:
I guess it won't surprise Ryan that I'm going to disagree with him on two-thirds of his opinions here.
On number 1: Why shouldn't the residents of any district decide for themselves who should represent them? Sure, I agree that a person who resides in a district is more likely to understand that district's needs and desires, but that's not necessarily so. Let the voters vote for whomever they wish to vote for--if they're stupid enough to vote for someone who won't represent them well, they get what they deserve.
And while we're at it, we need to get rid of the age requirements some elected offices have, such as the Governorship. If the voters want to elect a twenty-nine-year-old over a fifty-year-old, that should be their prerogative.
On number 2: Ryan, do you also believe in maintaining a complete separation between public and private not-for-profit organizations that don't happen to be schools? Because they already qualify for these SPRBs. I don't know if independent, private not-for-profits such as Hale Kipa and Child and Family Services have taken advantage of their elegibility, but my understanding is that they have it. Keep in mind that the these bonds are purchased by PRIVATE INVESTORS, and that the services provided by these institutions benefit every one of us.
Private schools only want the same elegibility that these other not-for-profits have. Schools that could benefit from the passage of this initiative don't typically include huge, wealthy schools like Kamehameha and Punahou, but tiny schools that are just barely hanging on, yet provide services for students who can't get them elsewhere (disclosure: I teach at ASSETS School, a private, not-for-profit which specializes in educating dyslexic children--many of whom have consistently failed in public schools because the public schools don't give them the kind of individualized, customized curriculum they need). I don't see a separation issue going on here--I just see the state getting out of the way of private investors who wish to help tiny schools such as ASSETS, which has all its classrooms in double-wide trailers, no endowment, and a yearly tuition of $14,000, the highest in the state.
The HSTA's position that this would take money away from public schools is ridiculous, and although I completely sided with the HSTA during its strike, its current campaign against initiative number 2 indicates that it's more interested in protecting its own concerns to the detriment of anyone else's. It's basically telling these private investors that if they want to give money to educating the state's children, they should give it to public schools.
Excuse me, but private investors already do (through their taxes), and if the public schools need more money, it's the state's job to figure out how much and where it's going to come from, and if that means raising taxes, that's what will happen--meaning that private investors will end up paying for increasing school budgets FIRST, no matter what, before lending money to private institutions.
Having said that, I will say that I'm not sure how I'm going to vote. I don't know enough about the process, but I plan to find out.
As for number 3, I don't know exactly how its passage would affect due process; if someone could help me out with that, I'll feel better about making an informed choice, but until someone convinces me, I'm voting no.
Posted by Ryan on October 19, 2002 10:18 PM:
Mitchell, glad you chimed in! I knew question number two was something you'd have more depth of understanding than I.
You make a good point in asking why the distinction between non-profit schools and other social service agencies. It's true that ultimately, the state is just offering its "buying power" (or fiscal weight) to improve terms for loans for these private schools, and fundamentally, I can't argue with the good intentions there.
But since I'm also not a fan of school vouchers (redirecting public funds to private schools, if not parochial schools), this just sounds a little too much like a step in that direction for my admittedly uninformed tastes. It's a flimsy line, I suppose, but one I'm just not yet confortable crossing.
I also feel (as the "con" text better explains on the PDFs linked above) these schools non-profit status is benefit enough - under these bonds, they would pay even less into the state.
Interestingly, as to your comment regarding small schools versus the KSBEs out there, the potential is there for the most benefit to go to bigger schools that need it the least: "Instead of providing a tax-exempt financing opportunity to small, financially strapped private educational institutions, this measure will probably be of greater benefit to the large, affluent, and financially well-to-do institutions."
On question one, your point is taken, but I still think a minimal residency requirement is needed. And it's not much of one anyway: even under the new rule proposed, carpetbagging is still possible - a candidate just needs to change his/her address the day before filing, instead of waiting until winning the Primary and hanging on until the day before the General.
The Bob Fishmans of the world will still not be stopped. But any little thing we can do to be sure that the person who represents a district has some kind of tie to the district - even if it's just a brand new street address - is a good thing in my book. I don't want to encourage a well-financed candidate from Upper Manoa to run in Kahaluu just because he can win. I want someone who knows what Kahaluu thinks, wants, and needs. (I mean, taken to extremes, why not let someone from California run for Honolulu City Council?)
On question three, I agree things are murky, and a big part of it is those last few words: "procedures and conditions to be provided by the state legislature." It seems a bit backwards to me to hand them the power before they've committed to what they plan to do with it.
As far as the due process part, again, the official PDF probably explains it better than I do. Basically, basic protections we have as citizens are being circumvented. The right to confront your accusers? Nullified. Innocent until proven guilty? Reversed. The power of an officer's or prosecutor's say so is amplified to the point of guaranteeing abuse.
It bothers me that the "pro" argument is largely the supposed cost savings, when the new channel if anything creates the potential for even more paperwork and hearings. As far as I can tell, the basic motive is either prosecutors want more power, or want to do less work.
Posted by Ken on October 20, 2002 10:32 AM:
Q1: I tend to side with the argument that in the area of candidacy requirements, that it is better to go with the absolute minimum, because you generally want to make it as easy as possible to run for office. I think in an open process, carpet bagging issues will always be there. Leave the details as to when the candidate moved into the district in relation to the Election Day as something the electorate may consider when choosing a candidate.
Q2: I think this is generally a good thing. As I understand it, this just opens the door for private not-for-profit schools to apply for Special Purpose Revenue Bonds (SPRB) the same way as the other approved agency categories can. Meaning, it is not a sure thing. As I understand it, a bill needs to be introduced in the legislature proposing the issuance, go through the public hearings process, be approved by 2/3s of both houses, and the leg must find that the project serves a public purpose. I'm not sure how easy it would be for a Punahou or Iolani to get something like this passed, just because of the PR angle. While the "pooling" clause in the amendment should give the small fry private schools a real opportunity to improve. While this may result in an even greater spread between the richest private school facilities and the poorest public ones (my take on the union objections), the reason for that spread should be less about this amendment and more about the priority our public schools get from our elected officials. the one definite down side that concerns me, as raised by Ryan is the loss of tax revenues. I wish there had been more disclosure on what this might actually cost the state down the road. However, unless the tax impact is dire, I still think this is a good idea.
Q3: I seem to remember a news article that pointed out that a similar process is used in 14 other states. I guess I am more willing to surrender some of the processes in the judicial system than most. In my mind, as long as I am still entitled to a fair trial, I was less concerned about the process that got me to that point. Under this new process the judge would still have to review the data and make a finding of probable cause, so that you could be charged with the felony to begin with, this was just a third way to get you to that point. Having said that, I agree that it would have been nice if they had been able to pass the procedures that would be used in this process so we could see exactly how it would work.
Posted by ali on October 23, 2002 1:14 AM:
I disagree that information charging circumvents the right to due process. Information charging is not meant to replace a trial. If passed, it will merely provide an additional option for determining probable cause. The right to confront one's accusers will still be present at trial. The defendant will still be innocent until proven guilty.
The present system has each and every felony charge go through either a grand jury proceeding or a preliminary hearing before being set for trial. The grand jury meets behind closed doors and the defendant is not present to question any witnesses. The defense counsel sometimes waives the preliminary hearing.
The judge will the make a decision of whether or not there is probable cause after reading the police reports and the written statements of the witnesses. The decision is not made by the investigating officer or the prosecutor. Many other States allow written statements in lieu of testimony.
Information charging will not necessarily reduce work or increase power for the prosecutor. It will decrease the trauma, inconvenience and expense for victims and witnesses. They have already given their statements to the investigating officers. Many are terribly afraid of the defendant. It is difficult for victims of violent crime to have to repeat the horrific details to the police, to the prosecutor, to the grand jury or in court at the preliminary hearing and then again at trial. It is traumatic for victims of sex assault and child sex assault to even speak about their ordeal. Is it any wonder that many of these cases go unreported? Even victims of non-violent crimes like burglary can be traumatized. Regardless of the level of fear, these victims and witnesses will need to take time off from work/school, find transportation and childcare to appear. If they are subpoenaed and do not appear, a warrant may be issued for their arrest. If you are the parent of a victim or witness under the age of 18, you would be subpoenaed to bring them to court. Here on the Big Island, transportation can be a real problem—if you live in Kona and the crime happened in Hilo, you’d have to come to Hilo to testify at the grand jury/preliminary hearing and then again for the trial.
The police must also be present. They regularly have to wait at court to testify. There’s usually several officers present for each case, in addition to the technical witnesses such as the fingerprint experts, chemists, pathologists, doctors, weapons experts, etc. Unlike the civilian witnesses, the State and County pays for these people to be at court or grand jury to testify. If the police are not on duty, they get overtime. The Big Island does not have a coroner here, we have to fly someone in. The police and experts will also have to come back for trial.
I support information charging as an additional option for determining probable cause. It will serve to reduce trauma and inconvenience to victims and witnesses.
Posted by Ryan on October 23, 2002 6:51 AM:
Thanks, Ali, for a most articulate and enlightening post. I'm certain the issue looks quite differently to someone who has to work with the often cumbersome and flabbergastingly inefficient system. I think the trauma to witnesses is probably the most compelling reason to support question three.
I'd also recommend Peter Carlisle's essay, "Neither the sky nor due process is falling," from the Oct. 13 Star-Bulletin. The question-and-answer portion at the end is especially helpful.
Meda Chesney-Lind and David Johnson made their case against question three the next day.
One thing this discussion has shown me is that there is reasonable arguments on both sides of each question (contrary to my usual initial opinion). As it stands my original votes are sticking, but I certainly see the other side much clearer.
Posted by Ryan on October 23, 2002 9:25 PM:
Um, a couple of things to add, now that I've had an afternoon to think about it.
One, I have been the subject of court proceedings, and for what little it's worth, I'm convinced it does make a difference having experts and witnesses (and I expect law enforcement officers) there in person to stand behind what they're affirming, rather than them just sending in stacks of paper. I concede their formal reports and statements are probably more thorough and accurate, but I imagine from the point of view of a defendant, I'd think there's definitely a difference. Whether it's worth the trouble and discomfort is still open to debate.
Two, in a fit of guilt over getting older and grumpier, I recently became a card-carrying member of the ACLU. (Yes, I'm officially a left-wing commie pinko bastard.) So today I get in the mail a two page letter urging me to vote no on amendment question three. They make a decent case, but even I have to agree with Peter Carslisle that their concurrent effort to stop the vote entirely is a bit extreme. (Well, it is the ACLU, after all.)
Posted by Linkmeister on October 24, 2002 9:08 AM:
Ha! I got the same letter (Mom is a member, but don't tell anyone, ok?). Ali's argument has caused me to think a little differently about it (dammit)!
Posted by Ronette on October 26, 2002 9:44 PM:
Please visit this website for accurate information about Ballot Question No. 3. The proponents of question 3 have put out alot of misinformation about the issue. For example, they've said that 14 states use information charging. What they don't tell you is that in some states information charging is permissible only after the suspect waives their right to a grand jury or preliminary hearing. They also don't tell you that in some states, although they use information charging, the Defendant is allowed to depose each and every witness related to the case. In other words, the "victim" is subjected to a far worse cross examination--there's no judge at a deposition, just the attorneys, the witness and the court reporter. In contrast, a Grand Jury proceeding is PRIVATE. Just the prosecutor and the 14 grand jurors. No defense attorney, no defendant. The witness or "victim" testifies in a closed hearing. Defense attorneys depend on early information in a case, like a grand jury transcript or preliminary hearing in order to determine whether a case should proceed to trial or plead. Without this info, more cases will go to trial which means that ultimately, more "victims" will testify in an open courtroom, where a Judge, jury, defendant, defense attorney, prosecutor and WHOEVER ELSE HAPPENS TO BE IN THE AUDIENC! Which hearing would you rather be at? A private Grand Jury or a full blown public trial. Remember, the majority of cases end up in pleas of guilty. Only a small fraction, approximately 5% of cases end up in a trial. That means most witnesses testify only once--at grand jury or preliminary hearing.
One of the biggest misrepresented issues is that Hawaii doesn't allow hearsay at grand jury or prelimnary hearings. That's absolutely false. The truth of the matter is that at preliminary hearing, hearsay is permissible where "it is demonstrably inconvenient" for a witness to be at the hearing. It is ALWAYS demonstrably inconvenient for a doctor to be at preliminary hearings or grand juries, and a police officer will routinely testify for the doctor after having interviewed him/her. At grand jury, the rule is that a prosecutor may not use EXCESSIVE hearsay. In other words, you can't call witness A for witness B if witness B is available. Tourists always go back home before these hearing are had, so a police officer oftentimes testify for them.
Moreover, many times defense attorney stipulate to testimony--meaning they'll agree if a witness were called to testify, they would say "ABC". This is commonly done in drug cases at preliminary hearing so that the police department's chemist doesn't have to trek down to court.
Don't be fooled by the misinformation out there. Go to "www.voteno.ws"
Don't be fooled!
Posted by Ryan on October 26, 2002 9:56 PM:
Ronette? At kawakamir@hawaii.rr.com? Could you be deputy public defender Ronette Kawakami? If so (and even if not, of course), welcome, and thanks for your comments!
FWIW, on the matter of Question 2, I just found out my mother's been clipping every article and letter she can about it to educate herself on the issue. Oddly enough, while if you used TV ads as a guide you'd think everyone was in favor, every single letter (albeit almost all from public school educators) in the papers were against it.
The proponents of Question 2 definitely have the bucks. But I'm impressed with the grass-roots passion of its opponents.
Posted by Ken on October 29, 2002 4:44 PM:
Lowell Kalapa, Executive Director of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, recently chimed in on the three amendments here.
I have always found his insights into the fiscal operations of state and county government to be informed, well researched and very independant. So, I paid special attention to his views on Question 2.
Just another view to consider I guess.
Posted by Linkmeister on October 29, 2002 7:04 PM:
Ken, thanks for the Kalapa link. I'm delighted to find he has the same reasons I do for agreeing to it. ;)
Posted by Linkmeister on October 29, 2002 7:05 PM:
Er, that would be Question 2, I mean. (Read before posting, read before posting.)
Posted by Ryan on October 31, 2002 9:48 AM:
Even though it is the Honolulu Advertiser, I was pleased to see their recommendations on the questions echoed mine.
Clearly folks feel strongly about question three. I actually see sign-wavers and bumper stickers on it.
Posted by Linkmeister on October 31, 2002 12:30 PM:
Received in the HPU Alum e-letter today:
"Question #2 on the general election ballot is for a constitutional amendment that would allow private schools and universities" (My emphasis); I'd not really given that aspect much thought. It would thus allow HPU, Chaminade, and (presumably) BYUH to share in this deal. Hmmm.
Posted by Charles on November 1, 2002 10:17 AM:
Talk about misinformation. Deputy Public Defender Ronnette Kawakami’s website has a waving American flag, and “This Land Is Your Land” playing in the background. On one of the pages, it quotes Abe Lincoln and draws connections to Van Cams. It also features quotations from wealthy criminal defense lawyers such as Howard Luke. Please stick to the issue Ronnie. Don’t insult our intelligence. Read all the articles in all the papers, watch the TV, listen to the radio and decide for yourself how to vote on Question 3.
Ronnie was in Judge Del Rosario’s courtroom yesterday, with the ACLU, trying to deny the people of Hawaii of their right to vote on Question 3 with a court injunction. And she’s saying “Keep the People in the Process”? Does anyone see a contradiction here? Needless to say, the judge denied them of what they wanted.
Posted by Ryan on November 1, 2002 12:17 PM:
Well, I don't think there should be any surprise over how a public defender stands on Question 3, just as a prosecutor's view (i.e. Peter Carlisle) would be easy to guess.
Even though I'm against Question 3, and even though I'm a member of the ACLU, I wasn't a fan of the legal effort to stop the vote. The "Yes" camp is fighting both the "No" camp and the blank vote factor, after all, and even if the materials were worded poorly, I don't think either side has been remiss in making their case to the public.
Posted by Ken on November 1, 2002 6:30 PM:
I also received a letter from Chaminade University presenting the same point as Linkmeister's HPU e-mail. Seems like the private universities are also moving on this issue. The letter also directed readers to the website of the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools, which has their argument for a yes vote on Q2. www.hais.org/sprb
Posted by Ronette on November 2, 2002 1:38 AM:
You bet I was in the courtroom yesterday. It's everyone's right to be in an open courtroom to make sure that our process works fairly. We were not a part of the filing of the injunction, however, I beleive you misunderstand the issues.
The state office of elections did not follow proper procedures in notifying the public about the ballot issue. These are State laws that require strict compliance. Unless the public is adequately informed, and not MISLED by the information that the office of elections disseminates about the issue, or lack of information, the electorate will be voting with a blindfold on. The first problem was not publishing the amendment in its entirety as required by State law. Then, not making it available at State Libraries, as required by State law. Third, by publishing erroneous information as to the effect of a "Yes" vote. For example, the "pros" section says "Crime victims will not be required to testify at both preliminary proceedings as well at trial." This statement is absolutely false. There are any number of preliminary proceedings in which a crime victim would testify at and also testify at trial, regardless of whether the case is charged by information or by grand jury/preliminary hearing. The Office of Election's informational packet is misleading, and makes it me wonder about the accuracy of the information in the other two amendments. Asking for an injunction as a legal remedy is to insure that the issue is preserved. Oftentimes, the law will require that you raise the issue with the courts before the event occurs or you waive your right to complain later.The ACLU was doing its job to make sure that they preserve the issue, not deny the electorate of a constitutional right to vote.
I am not opposing this ballot issue as a deputy public defender, but as a citizen who believes that innocent people get charged with crimes too. The constitution applies to all of us. I love my waving American Flag--I'm a computer neophyte and have never had the opportunity or technology to make pictures move. I think it's cool (I have to admit, others think it's geeky, but too bad, I love it)
Howard Luke is a thoughtful, kind, sincere person who represents many different kinds of people. He was a dedicated and well-respected Deputy Prosecuting Attorney under Charles Marsland and calling him a "wealthy criminal defense attorney" is a cheap shot, just like the ones that Carlisle takes whenever he can't respond on the merits.
Van cams were a disaster--the law was developed without enough public input and forethought--which is what we think will occur with ballot question no. 3 if it passes.
The difficulty with this issue is that it is very complicated. Without knowing what type of information charging we're getting, we can't really know whether the results the proponents are touting will occur, or if it'll hurt our community more. If I thought that this idea would truly benefit the "victims" of crimes to the extent that the proponents have claimed, I would certainly consider it. I think it will hurt victims, because more cases will go to trial. Just tonight I heard Carlisle say on KHET that victims won't have to testify twice--at grand jury/prelim, and later at trial. 95% of witnesses already don't do both, because the cases plead out--they testify once at prelim. or grand jury! It's alot better to testify at prelim or grand jury than a full-blown trial.
It's important to note that not once during this campaign have I heard that the current system is broken. The goal of a grand jury or preliminary hearing is to garner a felony charge based on probable cause. There doesn't appear to be a problem with getting cases charged. If its not broken, don't fix it.
Thanks for your comments, Charles--discourse on the issue is a good thing!
Posted by Charles on November 2, 2002 9:57 AM:
We know that the “PRO” AND “CON” side of the document that the Office of Elections issued is just argument, and can be seen as misleading on either side. We know that a defendant DOES NOT have a constitutional right to confront the accuser at a probable cause hearing, such as the CON argument implies.
The question is, should prosecutors be allowed to submit signed, written information to the court, which will then determine if there should be a felony prosecution. If you say no, then vote no. If you say yes, vote yes.
Constitutions provide a broad framework in which to work out details. Those details are decided by lawmakers who we elect to represent us in the legislature. If this amendment passes, statutes must be created next session to provide procedures for Information Charging, as required by the amendment. This will go through the normal three reading process where lobbyists (prosecutors, defense attorneys, ACLU) come in and testify for or against it in front of a committee. Most likely the bill will be heavily amended before being passed into law. If it doesn’t pass, there is no procedure in place and therefore Information Charging will not be used.
If someone is convicted through a “biased government lawyers unchecked power to charge and imprison citizens” as your website says, you can bet that case will get overturned faster than you can say “U.S. Constitution.” How embarrassing would that be for the prosecutor?
All other argument is speculation on what people believe will happen if the amendment passes. Please visit www.co.honolulu.hi.us/prosecuting to hear our argument.
By the way, I am not Peter Carlisle as some of your responses imply, but I do work for the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. Also, Howard Luke is a respectable attorney, and he is everything Ronette says he is, but he has a vested interest in this issue, being a criminal defense attorney. Lastly, I am very glad that people care about this issue. The worst thing is not to answer YES or NO, but to leave it blank.
Posted by Paul on November 6, 2002 2:20 PM:
Hey Ronnie! I hope you, Brook Hart and Susan Arnette enjoyed watching democracy in action last night as much as I did. I'm so glad the people saw through all the garbage that you posted and made the right decision on Question #3. To the people of Hawaii, thank you very much for all of your kind words and support!
Posted by Ronette on November 6, 2002 8:21 PM:
Hey Paul! It's disappointing when people such as yourself are unable to value open, honest discussion. It really isn't necessary to unjustly characerize an opposing view as "garbage", but it does show your own lack of graciousness and class. It's unfortunate.
I did enjoy watching democracy in action and will enjoy the continuing democratic challenges to the election.
Posted by Paul on November 6, 2002 10:47 PM:
Ronnie, I'm merely expressing my opinion on the topic. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally find it surprising that persons such as yourself and your buddies at the ACLU still value elections after your attempts to derail the vote and mislead the public on Constitutional Amendment #3. Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you "takes cheap shots" or "can't argue on the merits" or lacks "graciousness and class?" Your attacks are the personal ones! The readers can decide for themselves what they think about you. The voters have already decided about Constitutional Amendment #3. Your arguments and your website have proven to us all that garbage wrapped in an American flag is still garbage.
Posted by Ryan on November 7, 2002 7:24 AM:
I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed in the (fortunately limited) representation of our city prosecutors' office in this discussion.
Ronette, even in supporting the court challenge to the vote (which I don't), seems to be remaining level headed, but her counterparts across the aisle are coming across as petty. (Not to mention posting with their work addresses, rather than from home.)
Paul, I would argue that lawsuits are just as American these days as a vote. Further, as the debacle in 2000 proved, "the will of the people" can be selectively ignored by the people in power (with, ironically, the help of the judicial branch).
Besides. My understanding is the basis for the suit — that the modest requirements for public notice were not met — would invalidate all three amendment ballot questions. That, I think, would make things interesting.
Posted by Ronette on November 7, 2002 7:31 AM:
My comments are responses to your own and Charles' personal comments. You can choose to see that or not.
The important thing is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, including yourself, no matter how misled or misguided it may be, or unpopular.
Posted by Paul on November 7, 2002 8:30 AM:
I would not exactly say lawsuits are as American as the right to vote, but you are entitled to your opinion. The right of the people to vote is the most fundamental right of a democratic society. I say it was wrong for the opposition to have to resort to injuctions and other obstructions to block the people from deciding the issue for themselves. It is up for the courts to decide now whether the state office of elections followed the proper procedures required by the consitution for referendum. I'd rather talk about the amendment itself. The fact remains that it is a far better use of police to protect our streets instead of sitting in a courtroom for hours waiting to be called to testify. There has to be a better way, and we think we've found it. It's a system that is used in different variations in 38 other states. If it works for them, it certainly can work for us. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by Ronette on November 7, 2002 5:51 PM:
I find your most recent arguments reasonable, but I'm really not convinced that the system is broken such that it needs to be fixed. I don't think any of us have enough information to say that this is the solution. I respect your opinion and like you said, we'll see what the courts do.
Posted by Linkmeister on November 7, 2002 8:44 PM:
Hey, Ryan, should you offer our two duelists here some of our vacant space? I don't think the legal profession is represented in our group yet. Grins...
Posted by ali on November 8, 2002 12:14 PM:
I second Linkmeister's motion! I may not agree with some of the opinions posted here but they were certainly thought provoking and interesting. Intelligent discussion is always welcome! HawaiiStories is a wonderful place to hang your virtual hat. :)
![[ politics Category ]](/graphics/politics.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiAnswers.com - You ask, Hawaii answers. ]](/graphics/hawaiianswers.jpg){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiAnswers.com - Hawaii's first online news source. ]](/graphics/hawaiinews.jpg){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiAnswers.com - Let's talk story. ]](/graphics/hawaiithreads.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Chris ]](/graphics/button-keyofc.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Eric ]](/graphics/button-eric.jpg){kind=small}
![[ George ]](/graphics/button-george.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Grant ]](/graphics/button-grant.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Jennifer ]](/graphics/button-jennifer.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Kirby ]](/graphics/button-kirby.gif){kind=small}
![[ Lia ]](/graphics/button-lia.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Linda ]](/graphics/button-linda.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Mokihana ]](/graphics/button-mokihana.jpg){kind=small}
![[ 100 x 30 ]](/graphics/button-hs100x30.gif){kind=small}
![[ 88 x 31 ]](/graphics/button-hs88x31.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Fiction ]](/graphics/button-fiction.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Gallery ]](/graphics/button-gallery.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Poll ]](/graphics/button-survey.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Chat ]](/graphics/button-chat.gif){kind=small}