Racism against Hawaiians: Hana Johnson in the Honolulu Starbulletin

Racism against native people including but not limited to Hawaiians is epitomized in this letter by Hana Johnson. Her letter shows how racist some people are against Hawaiians and/or against minorities:

'Native' class will cause infringement


Proponents of racial purity should realize it is too late to jump on the Hitlerian bandwagon. That war was lost in 1945. One of the greatest cons of our generation is the movement of ethnic nationalism under the guise of indigenous or aboriginal rights. As communism of the Stalin era needed victims to succeed, so does ethnic nationalism. Instead of victimizing the wealthy on the pretense that it will benefit the poor, the non-natives are the victims and boundaries clearly marked.


In the case of aboriginal rights in the United States, the people owe the aborigines their welfare in perpetuity. Anyone in this country who is not "native" will pay for the welfare of all those who can claim "native" and the criteria to qualify if the Akaka Bill passes will be fairly simple. The people will be taxed without representation, impoverished by the burden and discriminated against for their race. It might not be evident now for many who support this movement, but eventually everyone will become a victim.

Indigenous or aboriginal rights have given racism a new name and legitimized it on a global scale, supported at the level of the United Nations. Rights are for the living and no group should have the power to infringe upon man's rights. The redefinition of aboriginal as a "right" and the legitimization of such is a crime against humanity.


Hana Johnson
Aiea


Seen here: http://starbulletin.com/2006/02/22/editorial/letters.html

State of OHA Address

Here is the full text of Haunani Apoliona’s speech:



OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS

State of OHA and the Native Hawaiian Community



Remarks of Trustee Haunani Apoliona, MSW

Chairperson, Board of Trustees

Wednesday December 7, 2005

Kawaiahao Church



Aloha mai kakou e na oiwi olino mai Hawaii a Niihau a puni ke ao malamalama.

Aloha e na kupuna, na makua, na opio, na keiki a me na kamaiki e akoakoa mai nei, ma keia hale pule laahia o Kawaiahao a maloko i ko kakou mau hale ohana a puni ke ao malamalama.

Aloha e na kamaaina a me na malihini kekahi. Aloha no kakou a pau loa.



Oiai e hiki koke mai ana ka hopena o keia makahiki, he wa kupono keia e helu a e hoomanao i na hana nui a koikoi o na mahina i hala aku nei a ke Keena Kuleana Hawaii, a me ke kaiaulu oiwi Hawaii kekahi.

No laila, e hoomaka kakou.



Translation Greetings to our esteemed fellow Native Hawaiians from Hawaii to Niihau and around this brilliant world. Aloha to the elders, adults, youth, children and toddlers who have assembled here at mid-day at this sacred church, Kawaiahao. Greetings to long time residents and newcomers alike. Aloha to you all!



As the year quickly comes to a close, this is a fitting time for us to collectively recall the many important accomplishments over the past months of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Community, our beneficiaries. Therefore, let us begin.



Aloha and welcome to all who have taken the time to gather with us, in our homeland and elsewhere, to hear this message.



When we talk about the State of OHA, we are also talking about the state of the Native Hawaiian people and the challenges and opportunities for the Native Hawaiian community. We are also talking about the state of the soon-to-be Native Hawaiian nation and OHA’s role in relation to this Native nation. Since “State of OHA 2004” twelve months ago, much has occurred. We have accomplished some important tasks along the way but there remain several issues of great concern. This morning I will focus on a few key areas and suggest how we, Native Hawaiian people and all the people of Hawaii, can move forward from here, sustaining our host culture by bringing the best of our values and tradition from the past with us into the future.



Our tradition teaches us that there is power in the “word” – i ka olelo ke ola, i ka olelo ka make. That is why we are taught to be careful of how we use our words, cautious

about what we promise by our words, and respectful of what we declare by our words. Through theolelo, our kupuna (ancestors) continue to inspire, guide and teach us through olelo noeau. It is our kuleana to apply their timeless wisdom to do good and make a positive difference. I share three olelo noeau with you to set the context for my remarks today.



I. E kaupe aku no i ka hoe a ko mai. (Put forward the paddle and draw it back.)

This olelo noeau urges us to go on with the task that is started and finish it.



When the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in 1978, it was tasked with bettering the conditions of Native Hawaiians, a broad mandate covering many areas of priority and need. While some improvements are occurring, Native Hawaiians continue the struggle to surmount dismal socio-economic statistics in terms of education, health, homelessness, substance abuse, incarceration, and similar outcomes of dispossession.



Bettering the conditions of Native Hawaiians in the socio-economic, political, legal, cultural, native rights, natural resource, and environmental areas has proven to be a daunting task over the past 25 years, not just for OHA but for all public and private trusts established to serve Native Hawaiians.



Today’s pause in our journey gives us a chance to look back over the last twelve months, and I would like to share with you a few highlights of how the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have addressed these areas of mandate in the year 2005. (A detailed 14 page summary is attached to the copy of this speech.)



In the area of education, OHA awarded 22 grants and 91 scholarships totaling $7.2 million. This includes a total two-year funding of $4.4 million, $2.2 million per year for two years, to Hawaiian-focused charter schools. Of this $7 million total, more than $5 million is for programs occurring in Department of Education public schools.



In the area of housing, OHA awarded $1.5 million to Habitat for Humanity to help 75 Hawaiian families with a “no interest” 20-year mortgage with monthly payments averaging less than $275 per month.



In addition, OHA maintains a program with First Hawaiian Bank and Bank of Hawaii, which provides mortgage loans for 103% of purchase price to cover down payments and closing costs.



In the area of economic development, OHA distributed $1.5 million this year:

17 business loans to Native Hawaiian businesses, totaling $917,000;

62 personal loans totaling $240,000; and

12 grants to community-based organizations totaling $350,000.



In the area of native rights, OHA responded to more than 600 requests for comments on land-altering activities and environmental issues concerning water use, cultural impacts, special management areas, land use, and protection of burial sites and iwi.



Of particular note is our collaboration with the Pele Defense Fund, Trust for Public Land, State Department of Land and Natural Resources, and USDA Forest Legacy Program to purchase and protect 26,000 acres of conservation land, Wao Kele O Puna, the last lowland rainforest in all of Hawaii nei.

Of equal significance, is that when title to these lands is conveyed to the Office of Hawaiian of Affairs in 2006, it will be the first parcel of crown or kingdom land returned to Native Hawaiian control, since the 1893 overthrow of the kingdom.



As mentioned earlier, more details on OHA’s funding, including initiatives in the areas of health and human services, grant awards and accomplishments these past twelve months can be found in the summary sheets attached to these written remarks.



Another fact of note, for fiscal year 2005, is OHA’s investment portfolio increase by approximately $55 million due to prudent actions taken under our investment policy. On September 30, 2005, our portfolio was valued at $363.9 million, slightly better than the reported all-time high of $359.7 million on June 30, 2000.



Our Trustees’ goal in growing the portfolio is to increase the annual allocation of funds, as permissible by our spending policy, for grants and awards OHA can distribute to relevant community-based initiatives and projects that: (1) enhance the quality of life for Native Hawaiians, and (2) strengthen capacity in our communities and families. We also need to assure adequate funding to continue ongoing advocacy efforts that will result in systemic changes to achieve positive impact for Native Hawaiians and in turn, improve conditions for all in Hawai’i. Concurrently, we keep our eye on the horizon for the time when a matured Native Hawaiian Governing entity will assume responsibility to administer and grow the assets transferred to it by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Hawaiian Homelands. A lot of work has been done. But indeed, there is much more to do.



Of particular concern this year are the continuing legal attacks designed to end Native Hawaiian programs and funds by dismantling OHA and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and unraveling the missions of our Alii Trusts. Plaintiffs and attorneys, unified in their purpose and mindset, seek to eliminate the Native Hawaiian admission preference policy at Kamehameha Schools.



Two adverse decisions this year from the 9th Circuit, Arakaki v. Lingle and Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, underscore more than ever the need for us to come together and support formal U.S. congressional recognition of Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people.



These plaintiffs and their attorneys are linked to well-financed and politically-connected special interests. These parties intend to continue filing lawsuits until they succeed in dismantling all Native Hawaiian rights and programs.



As a community, we cannot let these two 9th Circuit decisions stand. We must challenge these decisions, in court and in Congress, because they seek to undermine all that we are and eliminate all the gains we have made in the past 112 years. If we do not stand up now, we can expect these plaintiffs to eventually seek to eliminate tuition waivers at the University of Hawaii; stop all federal funding for health, education, job training, and economic development; and challenge the survival of the other Alii Trusts.



The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, along with DHHL and our Alii Trusts, must and will vigorously defend against these efforts ---- whatever it takes.



The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been in the Federal Courts since the year 2000. We have been to District Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. We do not relish the thought of spending any more time in these courtrooms. Nor do we relish deploying any more trust assets in the remaining half of this decade to Federal court battles when we could redirect these same resources to needs and priorities of Native Hawaiians.



We are only in the Federal Courts because a few file the legal complaints to hold hostage the many while concurrently attempting to rewrite history and instill fear in the community in which we live.



This is a battle that Native Hawaiians and ALL who support justice and fairness intend to finish and win.



II. Aohe hana nui ke alu ia. (No task is too big when done together by all.)

This second olelo noeau reminds us that nothing is impossible, no task is beyond our successful reach, when there is unified effort.



The task I am referring to is the building of a Native Hawaiian nation. This is our best legal and political option at this time in our history to, once and for all, affirm Native Hawaiians as an indigenous group of people. Native Hawaiians are not a “racial minority” as the “special interest opponents” would like you to believe. As an aboriginal people indigenous to these islands, Hawaii paeaina, we are a special political class entitled to certain protections under United States law.



Establishing ourselves as a Native Hawaiian nation will help to protect Native Hawaiian assets, federal funding and programs, and the Alii trusts.



To this end, OHA has helped to further nation-building by:

Supporting, since February 2004, and throughout 2005, the Native Hawaiian Coalition, an informal group of organizations and individuals tasked with determining the steps to be followed in the process of building a Native Hawaiian governing entity, inclusive of Native Hawaiians both in Hawaii and away from our shores, and to involve all Native Hawaiians in these steps going forward; and in fulfillment of their mission “to establish a process that will provide the Hawaiian people with a mechanism for achieving self-governance through self-determination” (NHC mission statement)

Supporting KAU INOA, a registration of all Native Hawaiians, wherever they may reside; and

Supporting passage of S. 147- The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 (Akaka Bill), one of the few options available to us today to protect Native Hawaiian assets, programs, and funding.



We know there is disagreement within the Hawaiian community about S.147 and federal recognition. To that end, we encourage all Native Hawaiians to get involved and find out the facts. Be informed. Don’t rely on second-hand or third-hand information. Read the Bill for yourself, understand what it means, and share your manao with your ohana. We cannot let the hurt, anger, and mistrust generated by the past infect and spoil the renewed efforts to generate positive outcomes for Native Hawaiians and Hawai’i nei.



Building a nation cannot be done alone or by only a handful of people. All Native Hawaiians need to participate. OHA cannot do it alone. All Native Hawaiian organizations and Trusts need to step forward and discuss nation-building with their beneficiaries and constituents. Native Hawaiian families must get informed and encourage education on these matters within the ohana. We must seek and welcome support from non-Natives, as well, in our pursuits. Natives and non-Natives unified for this cause will insure success. In 2005, over 2,000 supporters of S. 147 courageously stepped forward to place their names in two full-page advertisements in the newspaper and over 200 gathered in unified voice at Iolani Palace on an August morning to declare, “S.147, AE”.



Native Hawaiians have a cultural and spiritual capacity to work toward resolution of problems and conflict. We have strength in reconciliation. Now is the time to use our ancestral wisdom and discernment to forge common ground among our Native Hawaiians, chart the course for the Native Hawaiian nation, and make it a reality.



With nation-building, we have the opportunity to revisit the words of Queen Liliuokalani who, in 1917, near the end of her life said, “I could not turn back the political change.” In 2005 going forward, we have the opportunity to redirect that political change into one that can be of benefit to present and future generations. We must succeed. Our degree of success will be weighed by our capacity to work in unified effort.



The OHA trustees and administrator established a Washington D.C. Bureau in 2003 to assure an ongoing national presence and advocate for more than 401,000 Native Hawaiians. The primary goal is to educate Congress and the executive branch on issues important to Native Hawaiians and secure passage of favorable legislation at the national level.



In 2005, our Washington Bureau developed national partnerships for OHA and facilitated OHA’s co-sponsorship in 32 events and represented OHA at over 50 D.C., Congressional, Departmental, Alaska Native, American Indian, national and pacific organization meetings and events; and hosted Native Hawaiians and visitors to increase awareness of issues important to Native Hawaiians.



Passage of S.147 (the Akaka Bill) is the primary focus of the OHA D.C. Bureau because Native Hawaiian public and private trusts, programs, assets, and cultural resources are likely to be lost to future generations as a result of hostile litigation and misinformation. Enactment of S.147 is a solution NOW, because it reaffirms and clarifies the United States’ political and legal relationship with Native Hawaiians and establishes a process for federal recognition of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity.



In 2005, the OHA D.C. Bureau coordinated initiatives with OHA trustees and the administrator, legal advisors, the Hawaii congressional delegation and key staff, the Governor of Hawaii, State and County policy-makers, Native Hawaiian royal societies, homesteaders, Hawaiian civic clubs, other Hawaiian organizations, American Indians, Alaska Natives, various Pacific and Asian American organizations, and an array of civil rights organizations to increase national understanding of our distinct Native Hawaiian community and secure support for passage of S.147- the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 (the Akaka Bill).



Our presence in Washington, D.C., has reminded us that most people DO NOT KNOW that Native Hawaiians and our Native Hawaiian culture exist today, NOR DO THEY KNOW the history of the overthrow of our sovereign Hawaiian nation. They do not understand we are a unique, indigenous community living as Native Hawaiians through our ohana, cultural practices, Hawaiian institutions and organizations, and churches, while also living life to succeed within Western priorities and values. Washington D.C. and surrounding areas may not know all there is, but with our unified and diligent efforts they are learning.











III. Aohe loaa i ka noho wale. (Nothing is gained by idleness.)

This third, and final, olelo noeau, shared this morning reminds us that success is not earned without hard work, joint effort and the commitment of energy and passion to strive.



In seeking to build a nation and protect what many have worked in the past 112 years to achieve, we need to take action NOW. Native Hawaiians, throughout this nation and the world, must step forward to be counted. We are fast approaching 50,000 KAU INOA registrations, and we have 8 times that number to go if we are to achieve the levels of outreach to Native Hawaiians counted by Census 2000. We need to rebuild and reorganize our nation NOW. We cannot sit idly by and wait for others to do it for us. We must not let a few, disgruntled voices misrepresent our history. Nor can we let loud voices of intimidation attempt to control the process. Individual personal agendas of self-service within our Hawaiian community must not be allowed to detract from moving toward the greater good.



Lastly, on this commemorative day for Pearl Harbor, December 7, we are once again reminded of the patriotism of people in Hawaii over these decades of world conflict. We know indigenous people nationwide serve in the U.S. military at rates higher than any other ethnic group in the U.S. We are respectful and proud of all of Hawaii’s daughters and sons who have served America with distinction over the years, some to whom we have said goodbye … in this very Church.



I challenge all Native Hawaiians, and non-Hawaiians who support us, to extend patriotism to the building of our Native Hawaiian nation. Let the principles of self-determination be applied to the domestic agenda for Native Hawaiians. Our survival as a unique group of people, nurtured by culture and values millennia old, depends on our ability to withstand these legal attacks. The survival of the host Hawaiian culture, the foundation of our unique Hawaii life style and multi-dimensional community, depends on the collective efforts of all of Hawaii’s people, kamaaina, and malihini.



Closing



In our journey to rectify the past, we continue to be helped by many native people along the way including Alaska Natives, Indian tribes and native nations across the U.S, native nations in the Pacific, and other civil rights organizations throughout America. Alaska Natives and American Indians share their wisdom so we can learn from their experiences. Therefore, in closing, I wish to use a quote from one of their leaders, Vine Deloria, a beloved Indian writer who died just a few weeks ago. In his book Custer Died for Your Sins, in discussing the years of mistreatment and injustice by the U.S., Mr. Deloria notes, “It is up to us to write the [next] chapter of the American Indian upon this continent.”[1]



We, today, have the same opportunity to write the “next chapter” for the Native Hawaiian (in Hawaiian history).



Let us build a nation, a Native Hawaiian governing entity, with leaders and members who will go forward to reconcile past injustices and build for the future. Let us build a nation that embraces all Native Hawaiians, wherever they reside. Let us build a Native Hawaiian nation that respects the many non-Hawaiians who call Hawaii home; who have embraced our host Hawaiian culture as theirs in the multicultural lifestyle that is unique to Hawai’i, remembering that the faces of our 21st century ohana mirror all these cultures.



When we have done all of this, charting justice for Native Hawaiians, aware of the challenges and significant strides of the last 112 years, crafting changes which remain to be done while being sensitive to the needs of all who call Hawai’i home, we will have begun to write the next chapter in Hawaiian history. We, collectively committed, can and will make profound and magnificent progress, and it will be a story for and about Native Hawaiians of which we will all be proud.



And finally, I want to say mahalo a nui loa to all the working hands of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, our staff and employees. Our foundation of work that serves Native Hawaiian beneficiaries is one built by your labor and dedication to the mission.

On behalf of the OHA Board of Trustees and our community we thank you and those who have supported our efforts. May 2006 and beyond continue to mark successful steps toward our promising future.





Nolaila……………………………………

I mua, e na pokii, a inu i ka wai awaawa. Aohe hope e hoi mai ai.



Indeed there is no retreat.



Mahalo and aloha!


Seen at http://www.oha.org/content.asp?ContentId=463




Unfortunately their email and their fax numbers do not work on their website at www.oha.org

Possible Hate Crime Against Hawaiians

In the October 14, 2005 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser:

"A group of Hawai'i taxpayers yesterday asked the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that threw out most of the taxpayers' lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of government funding for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

The group is asking for a rehearing by the three-member panel that issued the ruling or for a rehearing by a larger panel of 11 appeals judges.

The appeals court panel on Sept. 30 unanimously affirmed most of the 2002 decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway dismissing the lawsuit, but reinstated part of the suit challenging a portion — about 10 percent — of OHA's annual funding that comes from state tax payers.

The group's lawsuit alleges that public money is misused by government funding the programs benefitting residents of Hawaiian blood, but the appeals court ruled the taxpayers do not have standing or legal authority to press their suit, except for the portion challenging state taxpayer money to OHA."


Seen in the Honolulu Advertiser

The group of plaintiffs include

"EARL F. ARAKAKI; EVELYN C. ARAKAKI; EDWARD U. BUGARIN; SANDRA P. BURGESS; PATRICIA A. CARROLL; ROBERT M. CHAPMAN; MICHAEL Y. GARCIA; TOBY M. KRAVET; JAMES I. KUROIWA; FRANCES M. NICHOLS; DONNA MALIA SCAFF; JACK H. SCAFF; ALLEN TESHIMA; and THURSTON TWIGGSMITH"

Seen in the Honolulu Advertiser

Why aren't they suing the government and/or some of its entities since other minorities and racial groups receive government funding such as:


1. Indian Health Service Student Aid Resources


2. America's Fund for Afghan Children which is based on race


3. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program


4. Alaska Native Education which is another program based on the race of a minority group


5. Migrant Education Coordination Support Center another that receives government funding partly based on race



6. Title III Part B, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program; Program Office: Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service, CFDA Number: 84.031B, Program Type: Discretionary Grants based on race



7. Traditionally Underserved Populations; Program Office: Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), CFDA Number: 84.315 , Program Type: Discretionary/Competitive Grants, Contracts, Cooperative Agreements


These are just a few examples. More can be seen here:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/find/elig/index.html?src=ov




Unfortunately they seem to single out and target Hawaiians.


On top of that they are advocating violating the Admissions Act of 1959. H. William Burgess is an attorney in Hawai'i.

Trying to Strong-Arm Hawaiians Into Supporting the Akaka Bill In Order to Be Protected

On August 2, 2005, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only admission policy is unconstitutional:

A news station in Hawai'i posted this report:

Court Rules Against Kamehameha Admission Policy
Appeals Court Says Hawaiians-Only Policy Unconstitutional

Brent Suyama
POSTED: 9:26 am HST August 2, 2005

UPDATED: 10:04 am HST August 2, 2005

HONOLULU -- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Kamehameha Schools' admission policy of Hawaiians only is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel overturned the decision by U.S. District Judge Alan Kay in November 2003.


Kay ruled that the private school may continue to deny admission to non-Hawaiian students because of its unique and historical circumstances. Kay emphasized that Kamehameha receives no federal funding and because of that, the private school isn't held up to the same scrutiny as public schools.

Eric Grant is the attorney for an unnamed non-Hawaiian who wants to go to Kamehameha. He has argued that the federal courts have never approved a policy that categorically excludes on the basis of race.

Kamehameha Schools was set up by the trust of Bernice Pauahi Bishop and was started in 1887.

The school's next step could be to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court


Seen here

You can read the ruling:


here



Eventually Kamehameha Schools will turn into another Dartmouth College which was a school for indigenous children:

"The Reverend Eleazar Wheelock, a Congregational minister from Connecticut, founded Dartmouth College in 1769. He had earlier established Moor's Charity School in Lebanon, Connecticut, principally for the education of Native Americans."

Seen here

Nowadays, it's a school for the white and wealthy.


It's amazing how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as the Akaka Bill is being presented for a vote. It's as though they are strong-arming Hawaiians into supporting the Akaka Bill so that they are protected.

Also Hawaiians comprise of approximately .1% of the total population in the United States versus 74% of the total population which are comprised of Caucasians:

see Census Report here


The question is... what about the civil rights of Hawaiians?

Hedy Sullivan of Kauai

Hedy Sullivan's Case Shows a Lot:

1. Many times Hawaiians are unaware and/or are fearful of the Haole Way... even if some of them are (part) Haole too.

I know this from personal experience as my maternal grandmother feared returning to her oncologist in Hilo for a check-up. The result? She returned too late and the cancer had spread from her ovaries to her lymph nodes... and beyond. She eventually died from complications due to cancer. My father has always taught me to fear "John Law" meaning according to him (my father) if there is a cop near me... I am supposed to submit and/or be afraid. (However my cop friend knows how I am meaning... I don't fear cops... not even him but I am an atypical Hawaiian meaning I am not afraid of the legal system in the U.S.) Unfortunately the generations preceding mine are the ones most fearful and/or uneducated and I don't blame them.

That is why I don't blame Hedy Sullivan for pleading guilty because to many Hawaiians they have fear instilled in them from their parents and/or grandparents. Many do not trust their judgment so if and when an attorney suggests a plea deal then chances are... they will take it without knowing the consequences in full. That is, they trust some people who are untrustworthy.

2. The child who was allegedly abused may have been an Ice Baby which epitomizes the Plight of ALL Hawaiians.

When I was in the midst of adopting Baby Ikaika who tested positive for crystal methamphetamine (a.k.a. "Ice,) I asked his pediatrician if there was a correlation between Ice and psychoses. Of course she gave me a bullshit answer but she admitted that she does not know. In fact there are no studies to date that show the effects of Ice on Ice Babies and since Hawaiians make up a little over 50% of the Ice users in Hawai'i then of course Ice WILL affect some Hawaiian babies.

ANYWAY this child who was alleged abused may have suffered paranoia that is common among long-term adult Ice users/abusers but do they look into that? Of course not. There is alot at stake. Read on.

3. It has totally deterred me from proceeding with the adoption of Baby Ikaika and with other Ice Babies. That is... I will NOT risk being abused by a child who tested positive for crystal methamphetamine.

My mother even warned me repeatedly that we don't know what the child will be capable of doing. While we don't know if this child who was allegedly abused tested positive for crystal methamphetamine I suspect that he was tested positive and that may be why she reacted to his actions. Again... I WILL NOT adopt an Ice Baby now that I know what can happen. How it affects the adoption of other Hawaiian children who tested positive for crystal methamphetamine is unknown but this case has shown me that it may not be worth it.

4. Of course the State of Hawai'i wants to take control of charter schools in addition to taking control of Hawaiians.

It was covered in an article in the Honolulu Advertiser on January 30, 2005:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jan/30/ln/ln05p.html


Then Sullivan filed to withdraw her plea on or about March 19, 2005:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/19/ln/ln07p.html

Then on or near April 20, 2005 Fifth Circuit Judge George Masuoka ON KAUAI denied the plea withdrawal request, and Sullivan's sentencing is scheduled for Tuesday. She faces five years in jail on each assault charge:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Apr/20/ln/ln18p.html>

Unfortunately many people don't realize how powerful "The Machine" is in Hawai'i. If they want to get rid of you then they WILL make a criminal out of you. Of course the people at her school support her but she is in the way of the State of Hawai'i which includes but is not limited to Kauai. That is where the circuit court judge comes into the picture: He is a tool for the State of Hawai'i to gain control of the charter schools.

5. It can also be a test to predict behavior to see how Hawaiians react to actions by the state of Hawai'i in the future.

In this case she pleaded guilty and I bet her previous attorney advised her without FULL disclosure. Chances are if she reacts this way... then other Hawaiians will too. That is why I say... do not be afraid of the law! Do not be afraid of lawyers! If anything... both work FOR you... not the other way around. Then again... I have THREE attorneys. Every Hawaiian should have one and no... they are not THAT expensive.

6. Speaking of her new attorney, Bill Feldhacker.. tonight I was niele (nosey) and looked for some dirt information about him:

On November 26, 2004 in the Tucson Citizen:

"Longtime prosecutor William H. Feldhacker, who trained many of the younger prosecutors in the office, announced his retirement Wednesday."

Seen at http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=112604a13_countyattorney

On December 9, 2004 in the Arizona Daily Star out of Tucson, Arizona he resigned from the criminal division of the Pima County Attorney's Office after criticizing that office then saying that he planned to enter private practice in Hawaii, where he was a prosecutor before coming to Tucson.

Seen at http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/metro/51760.php


Then I looked for any drunk driving charges and sure enough I saw his appeal on August 16, 1994 in the state of Hawai'i. I saw his name and had to make sure that it was him and make sure that his middle initial which is "H." In Hawaii Supreme Court Case No. 16977 he faced criminal charges for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor ("DUI") pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 291-4 (Supp. 1992):

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM HARRY FELDHACKER, Defendant-Appellee

NO. 16977

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CR. NO. C5-92-08-31)


August 16, 1994


MOON, C.J., KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, AND RAMIL, JJ.


OPINION OF THE COURT BY KLEIN, J. The Prosecution appeals from an order dismissing criminal charges against William Harry Feldhacker for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor ("DUI") pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 291-4 (Supp. 1992).1 Prior to trial, the prosecutor obtained a copy of the administrative hearing decision that summarized Feldhacker's testimony at his driver's license revocation hearing. Feldhacker claimed that the thereby violated the terms of the Notice of Administrative Revocation ("Notice"), which provided that evidence from the administrative hearing would "not be available to the Prosecutor."2 Feldhacker moved to suppress the evidence and for dismissal of the charges. The district court agreed with Feldhacker, prompting this appeal. We reverse. I. Facts Feldhacker was arrested on July 10, 1992 for DUI. The police informed him of the administrative revocation process pursuant to HRS chapter 286, Part XIV (Supp. 1992) ("Administrative Revocation Program") and issued the required Notice pursuant to HRS 286-255. A printed statement on the back of the Notice informed Feldhacker that [c]riminal charges filed pursuant to Section 291-4, HRS, may be prosecuted concurrently with this administrative action. If criminal charges are filed, all evidence from the administrative proceedings shall not be available to the Prosecutor.

(Emphasis added.) After administrative review, Feldhacker's license was revoked. See HRS 286-258. He then requested an administrative hearing that resulted in a rescission of the revocation because there was neither reasonable suspicion to stop Feldhacker's vehicle nor probable cause to believe that he operated the vehicle while intoxicated. See HRS 286-259(e). After the administrative process concluded, Feldhacker was criminally charged with two counts of DUI in violation of HRS 291-4(a)(1) and (2). The parties stipulated that the prosecutor had received a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision arising out of the administra- tive hearing ("Administrative Decision"), and that it contained evidentiary matters, including portions of Feldhacker's testimony.3 Based on the stipulation, Feldhacker moved to dismiss the DUI charges, arguing that the Notice afforded him "use immunity." The prosecutor countered that neither HRS 286- 253(a)4 nor the Notice provided "immunity" to Feldhacker; furthermore, no statutory provision bars the prosecutor from receiving a copy of the Administrative Decision. The only applicable restriction concerns the admission at trial of documentary and testimonial evidence provided by the arrestee during the administrative proceedings. The district court nevertheless granted Feldhacker's motion, finding that the Notice was a promise of "use immunity" and that the prosecutor was not entitled to request or receive the Administrative Decision. The pertinent findings of fact supporting the dismissal are: 1) The Administrative Decision includes portions of Feldhacker's testimony; 2) Feldhacker was given written notice that all evidence from the administrative proceeding shall not be available to the Prosecutor; and 3) the prosecuting attorney obtained the Administrative Decision. None of these findings was challenged by the Prosecution on appeal. In its conclusions of law (COL), the district court determined that: 1) The Notice "was a 'use immunity' promise" to Feldhacker; 2) the Prosecutor "was not entitled to request, or to receive, the Administrative Hearing Opinion, and by obtaining the same, all matters contained therein became 'tainted' informa- tion;" 3) "[b]ut for the Administrative Hearing, the Prosecuting Attorney would not have obtained portions of the testimony of [Feldhacker];" 4) under State v. Miyasaki, 62 Haw. 269, 614 P.2d 914 (1980), "the use to which a Prosecutor would put immunized evidence is difficult, if not impossible to prove or disprove;" and 5) "the sole question for this Court is whether this subse- quent criminal prosecution is related to the substance of the testimony or evidence given by [Feldhacker] at the Administrative Hearing after being advised that information would not be provided to the Prosecution; and this Court finds that it is." Id. These COL were assigned as points of error by the Prosecution. II. Discussion Because the facts are unchallenged, the sole issue on appeal is whether Feldhacker was entitled to "immunity" from the DUI prosecution after the prosecutor obtained the record of Feldhacker's administrative hearing. A. The Notice and HRS Chapter 286 The Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO), under the administrative director of the courts, is charged with the implementation of the Administrative Revocation Program. See HRS 286-251. Pursuant to its authority under HRS 286-254, the ADLRO drafted the Notice that the police give to DUI arrestees. The Notice includes a statement that the evidence and testimony provided by an arrestee at the administrative hearing "shall not be available" to the prosecutor. The district court concluded that this language was a promise of "use immunity." In isolation, the Notice language appears to prohibit the prosecutor from obtaining any evidentiary or testimonial evidence given by an arrestee during the administrative hearing. When the Notice is considered along with HRS 286-253(a),5 however, it is clear that there is a fundamental conflict between the phrases "shall not be available" and "shall not be admissible." Availability encompasses any access to or use of evidence both before and during trial; admissibility, on the other hand, concerns evidence actually proffered at trial. "It is axiomatic that an administrative rule cannot contradict or conflict with the statute it attempts to implement." Hyatt Corp. v. Honolulu Liquor Comm'n, 69 Haw. 238, 241, 738 P.2d 1205, 1206 (1987). An agency "may not enact rules and regulations which enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions of the act being administered." Jacober v. Sunn, 6 Haw. App. 160, 167, 715 P.2d 813, 819 (1986). By its clear and unambiguous language, HRS 286-253(a) prevents the Prosecution from gaining the admission of documentary or testimonial evidence presented by an arrestee at the administrative level in a subsequent criminal prosecution. "'Our primary duty in interpreting and applying statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intention to the fullest degree.'" Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Haw. 46, 68, 868 P.2d 1193, 1215, reconsideration denied, 76 Haw. 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994) (Klein, J., dissenting) (quoting Methven-Abreu v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., 73 Haw. 385, 392, 834 P.2d 279, 284, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 838 P.2d 860 (1992)). The legislative intent "is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself." Id. (quoting Kam v. Noh, 70 Haw. 321, 324, 770 P.2d 414, 416 (1989)).6 The intent of the law is to permit side-by-side administrative and criminal proceedings: the Administrative Revocation Program was designed to co-exist with criminal DUI prosecution. The legislature spoke clearly on this subject when it enacted HRS 286-253. The statute merely imposes an evidentiary bar; it does not prevent the Prosecution from obtaining a copy of the Administrative Decision, nor does it prohibit the Prosecution from obtaining the evidence or testimony provided by an arrestee. Thus, pursuant to HRS 286-253, evidence presented by an arrestee during the administrative proceedings shall not be admissible against the arrestee at a subsequent criminal proceeding for DUI. The Notice in the instant case, however, mistakenly enlarges the statutory limitation by rendering the Administrative Decision unavailable to the prosecutor. The ADLRO has a duty to provide clear information regarding both the administrative and criminal proceedings faced by a defendant. See HRS 286- 254(a)(2)-(3). Because the Notice contains an improper and erroneous statement of a defendant's rights, it is void and must be modified to comply with the requirements of HRS 286-253. To the extent that Feldhacker relied upon the Notice by giving his testimony in the administrative hearing, he is not entitled to equitable relief because he benefitted by having the matter concluded in his favor. The law and the wording of the Notice, erroneous though the latter may be, convey no grant of "use immunity" and no such immunity can fairly be implied as a remedy for Feldhacker's unreasonable reliance on the Notice. B. Statutory Requirements for Granting Immunity It is clear that the statutory requirements for granting immunity, under HRS chapter 621C (1985), Witness Immunity, were not satisfied by the Notice nor could they have been. HRS 621C-27 sets out the authority and procedures involved in obtaining immunity from prosecution for witnesses subpoenaed to testify in an official proceeding. The process is designed to preserve the witnesses' rights against self- incrimination. However, none of the procedures were followed in the instant revocation proceeding, either prior to or after Feldhacker's testimony before the hearing officer. Feldhacker was not compelled to testify, nor did the prosecutor request a court order granting him immunity. Clearly the statutes do not confer the power to grant prosecutorial immunity from subsequent DUI prosecution upon the ADLRO. Rather, only "a judge of a circuit court may, upon application by the attorney general or county prosecutor, . . . order . . . [a] person to testify" pursuant to a grant, by the court, of immunity from subsequent prosecution. HRS 621C-2 (emphasis added). In any event, contrary to Feldhacker's claim that he acquired "use immunity," the only form of immunity authorized by Hawai'i law is the transactional type.8 There is no valid statute or Hawai'i law that provides "use immunity." See State v. Miyasaki, 62 Haw. 269, 283-85, 614 P.2d 915, 923-24 (1980) (holding, under article I, section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution, that HRS 621C-39 is invalid because it does not place the witness in "substantially the same position as though he had not been compelled to produce evidence"). Nonetheless, Feldhacker argues that the Notice allows an arrestee to fully defend himself at the administrative hearing without losing his rights, under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,10 and article 1, section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution,11 to remain silent and not give evidence against himself. Feldhacker claims further that this court, in Miyasaki, "found that the Fifth Amendment's protection applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility the one who gives it." See Miyasaki, 62 Haw. at 275, 614 P.2d at 919. In Miyasaki, however, a defendant facing pending criminal charges was summoned to testify before the grand jury. Id. at 270, 614 P.2d at 916. Here, Feldhacker voluntarily testified at the administrative revocation hearing. He was clearly aware of his right to remain silent and was not compelled to testify. Although it is unfair to force testimony under a grant of use immunity as opposed to transactional immunity, see id. at 282-85, 614 P.2d at 923-24, constitutional protections against self-incrimination do not apply to voluntary testimony. Feldhacker's circumstances do not fit the paradigm for which the legislature created immunity from criminal prosecution. In effect, Feldhacker seeks the imposition of a judicially-created remedy for his reliance on the misleading Notice. In light of the relevant legislative pronouncements, we decline to formulate such unprecedented relief. No immunity from prosecution for DUI was ever granted and Feldhacker's erroneous assumption that he was promised immunity cannot create it. Feldhacker, who is an attorney, should have been aware of HRS 621C-2 and realized that its requisite procedures were not followed. III. Conclusion HRS 286-253(a) clearly provides that an arrestee's testimony and evidence at an administrative hearing shall not be admissible in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The prosecutor is not prohibited, however, from obtaining the administrative hearing decision. The trial court incorrectly concluded that the misleading Notice was a promise of immunity. We therefore vacate the order of dismissal and remand for trial on the DUI charge.


Gilbert P. Kea, (John C. Calma with him on the brief) Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, for plaintiff-appellant.

William H. Feldhacker, defendant-appellee pro se.


FOOTNOTES: 1. HRS 291-4 provides in pertinent part:

(a) A person commits the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor if: (1) The person operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in an amount sufficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for oneself and guard against casualty; or (2) The person operates or assumes actual physical control of the operation of any vehicle with .10 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in the person's blood.

2. The Notice was issued to Feldhacker by the police at the time of his arrest, pursuant to HRS 286-255 (Supp. 1992).

3. Regarding Feldhacker's testimony and evidence at the administrative hearing, the Administrative Decision provided:

The evidence is uncontroverted that the Arrestee had three scotch drinks during the evening. At the hearing Arrestee testified that he was attempting to pass the truck in front of him, but that whenever he attempted to so pass the truck in front would speed up to the point where Arrestee could not pass and Arrestee would pull back in. When Arrestee exited his vehicle his right knee would not take his weight and he stumbled a bit. [Arrestee testified that a knee surgery caused his knee to "give."] Arrestee testified that he choose (sic) to take a blood test and was taken to the hospital where someone swabbed his arm with alcohol and drew his blood.

4. HRS 286-253(a) provides:

Criminal prosecution under section 291-4 may be commenced concurrently with administrative revocation proceedings under this part; provided that documentary and testimonial evidence provided by the arrestee during the administrative proceedings shall not be admissible against the arrestee in any proceeding under section 291-4 arising out of the same occurrence.

(Emphasis added.)

5. See supra note 4.

6. Consideration of the legislative history supports the conclusion that evidence provided in the revocation proceeding is inadmissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution, but may nonetheless be made available to the Prosecution. See Richardson, 76 Haw. at 68-69, 868 P.2d at 1215-16 (Klein, J., dissenting) (quoting Survivors of Medeiros v. Maui Land & Pineapple Co., 66 Haw. 290, 297, 660 P.2d 1316, 1321 (1983), for the proposition that it is proper to go beyond the plain meaning of a statute "to determine if a literal construction would produce an absurd or unjust result, inconsistent with the policies of the state"). In 1990, the statute initially provided that if an arrestee's license was not revoked at the administrative hearing, he or she could not be criminally prosecuted. If, however, the arrestee was unsuccessful at the administrative level, all evidence from the administrative hearing became available to the prosecutor. During the 1991 special legislative session, the statute was amended so that even if an arrestee's license was not revoked, he or she could nevertheless be charged criminally. At the same time, the legislature eliminated the language making evidence and testimony from the administrative hearing available to the prosecutor; in its place, the relevant statutory language was amended to provide that such evidence would not be admissible at the criminal trial.

7. HRS 621C-2 provides:

If a person has been or may be subpoenaed to testify . . . in an official proceeding . . . a judge of a circuit court may, upon application by the attorney general or county prosecutor, issue an order requiring the person to testify . . . notwithstanding the person's refusal to do so on the basis of the person's privilege against self-incrimination. . . . The application and order shall specify whether the immunity granted under this chapter is use immunity as set forth in section 621C-3 or transactional immunity as set forth in section 621C-4.

8. HRS 621C-4 defines transactional immunity as:

If a person is ordered to testify or produce a record, document, or other object under this chapter and the order specifies that the person is granted transactional immunity pursuant to this section, such person shall not be prosecuted or punished in any criminal action or proceeding for or on account of any act, transaction, matter, or thing concerning which the person is so ordered to testify or produce a record, document, or other object, except that the person may be prosecuted for perjury, for giving a false statement, or for an offense involving a failure to comply with the order.


9. Under HRS 621C-3, use immunity is defined as:

The testimony or production that is compelled under the order, and any information directly or indirectly derived from the testimony or production, may not be used against the person in any manner in a criminal case, except in a prosecution for perjury, for giving a false statement, or for an offense involving a failure to comply with the order; provided that such person may be prosecuted or punished for any crime so long as testimony or production that is compelled under the order, and any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or production, is not used against such person in such prosecution.


10. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, "[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself[.]"

11. Article I, section 10 of the Hawai'i Constitution (1978) provides, in pertinent part, "[n]o person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself."

So yeah... attorneys are NOT perfect. Worse... many of them act as though they are innocent when many of them drive while intoxicated. That's why I say... don't judge Sullivan when her attorney was arrested for a DUI on July 10, 1992. Then again who would have known about his character? Everyone has skeletons in their closet and MANY people want Sullivan in jail. Some attorneys should be in jail for DUI! DAMN HYPOCRITS! Double Standard Bullshit! Unfortunately attorneys and judges protect each other. Hawaiians REALLY need to protect themselves. Seriously.

Anyway she'll be sentenced this Tuesday. I predict that they will show her some mercy. We shall see. If not... someone should contact the Hawai'i State Bar complaining about Feldhacker because if he was my attorney and I didn't know about his arrest for a DUI in 1992 then I would be the first to complain to the Hawai'i State Bar.

Randy Rustick's Story: Part Six

This is the continuation of Randy Rustick's story:

Then, a big guard (don’t remember what he looked like) opens my cell and has me follow a line on the ground and we go through some doors that we had to be buzzed into. Along the path I pass through two more walk-through metal detectors. We get to an elevator and enter it, and I am made to face the back wall of the elevator while we go up. The elevator stopped on the fifth floor. I again follow the line and walk through a metal detector.

I am made to stand next to a wall while the guard does some kind of check-in with a very large, round, windowed room that has 4 or 5 guards in it. After he signs in, we walk towards the unit that I am going to be housed in. As we walk, he asks me about what happened. Again, I tell him that I am innocent (he’s heard it all before, a million times, I’m sure). He asks me what I was thinking and why I would try to smuggle a blade on the plane. I give up trying to explain and just remain silent.

We then approach the doors of the unit I am going to be housed in. We are buzzed in. As the doors open, I am finally given my full dose of reality. Welcome to the general population. THIS…. is not where I want to be…

We enter a very large, two story cell block. There are many cell doors bordering the edges of the block, both upstairs and down. In the middle of the area is a staircase that leads up to the second floor. Right in front of me I see about 15 circular tables, with 4 or 5 chairs around each. At the far end of this block I see another set of stairs.

The first thing that I noticed, and still think about is all the blue shirts I saw. I mean… this is coming right out of a movie. There were about 40-50 inmates in the cell block. ALL of there attention was turned on me when I walked in; many of them seemed to be eyeing me up or trying to make eye contact with me. A couple of them gave me a “whats-up” head nod. I just looked down at my feet and ignored everybody. I didn’t feel like talking to anybody. I didn’t feel like anything.

Next to the entrance was a small room. In this room sat the guy that was responsible for the inmates. Surprisingly, there were no other guards around. In this small room was a desk and also some supplies like soap and towels. Behind the desk, the sergeant was busy filling out paperwork. His face was the kind of face that always looked happy. He seemed to be a very nice person.

He can tell that I am extremely nervous. He tells me that things are going to be fine. He goes over the rules and protocols. I listen with a blank stare on my face. A couple of times he is interrupted by some inmate that needs something. He seems to have a very good rapport with them. They seem to respect him very much.

He tells me that he is going to put me in a cell with Rad. He tells me that Rad is a very nice person, and he often sends new people to stay in his cell. Of course, my mind races here. I think I should go get testimonials from all those “new” people on how there stay was at hotel Rad. That way, I can make an informed decision on whether or not I want to stay in that cell.

Oh wait. I am not given a choice. Sigh…

To be continued

Copyright by Randy Rustick.
All rights reserved.

Randy Rustick's Story: Part Five

They drove me over the FPC (I think that is the acronym). I believe it is a 10 story building somewhere between the airport and Pearl City. Gary told me that he knew what I was feeling. Before he joined the FBI, he had gotten a DUI. I would have preferred to have gotten the DUI. I told him about the Mexico and Vegas trips I took while in college.

They didn’t stop to give me the lunch that I was promised. I think they just forgot. We pull up to the federal jail, and enter what looks like a very high security area. The car stops in front of these massive metal doors. Joe makes a call and then both of them remove their guns and lock it in the trunk of the car. We wait a few more minutes, until an office comes out to talk to the Joe. I stare at the big doors, wondering what is on the inside of them. I ask Gary if maybe it would be possible to just chain me to his couch or something. No luck.

The officer goes to a box, and dials a phone located on the inside. The massive doors then start to open… very slowly. As they open, I feel as if it was the gates of hell opening just for me. I was kind of in a dramatic mood, apparently. Inside was just a very large garage. Joe pulls the car in. There is a basketball hoop at the far end, a door, and not much else. A lot of empty space. We pull to a stop, and the agents have me get out of the car. The door on the side opens up, and we all go through.

We enter a processing area. This is a large area with a very long desk counter on the left hand side of the room. Behind this desk are a couple of offices. Bordering the whole room are cells. To the right is a large walk-through metal detector, and behind that looks to be a big storage room.

I am placed into one of the corner cells, my cuffs are taken off. The agents fill out some kind of paperwork. There are more officers in the processing area now. They all exchange pleasantries. Its just another day at the office for them. I don’t feel like exchanging pleasantries with
anyone.

Gary comes over to tell me that they will try to setup the lie detector test soon. I ask him what is going to happen next. He is not sure. This is one of his first busts. Great… I’ve been busted. The agents leave. When they do, I feel as if I am now completely alone. I am in a foreign world, with no support.

Once again, the order of things get hazy here. I have three interviews with three people, I just do not remember how it all went down. I will list them here, but there is no particular order.

1. I am asked to strip down of all my clothes. I am standing in front of a young Hawaiian male. I am completely naked, my hands are out to the side. My mouth is open and tongue is up. Good…no blade under the tongue. Now this part sucks. For the first of many times, I am asked to turn around, pull up my testicles, squat and cough. The term used was not “testicles”. I believe it was… “hold up your sacks”. It was pretty fricken cold in there and my “sacks” were pretty high already. However, the whole experience of being in that position in front of complete stranger was to say the least… not fun

2. I met in an office with a Japanese guy, a bit older than me. He calls out to one of the female guards about being the one to interview me. He says, too bad for her. I don’t EVEN want to know what that is about. He explains the rules. I will be allowed to have so many phone calls per month, I can order stuff from the inmate store once a week, etc. Mail is sent/received at these intervals. WAIT!!!!! Why are you talking like I am going to be here a long time? My heart rate starts to jump at that moment. Reality is starting to set in.

3. I have a meeting with an older Japanese lady. She is a doctor or nurse. She takes some readings from me and asks me allergy/drug questions. Again, she explains the medicine policy, and how to get them once a week. This will not due. I eat Tylenol like they were candy. If I got one of my headaches and had to wait a week for medicine, I would die. I have migraines that end me up in the emergency room a couple times a year. I have had them since I was a kid. I believe the lady took some blood.

4. I meet with the young Hawaiian male again. He takes my picture using one of those DMV picture taking devices. My picture appears on the computer screen, to be filed away on disk. It isn’t one of my best pictures. The thing I remember about this was that this guy could see that I was really down. He told me that everything will be ok, I just have to have faith. He said I had to be strong for my wife and kids, and for my family. He said that I could not appear weak. His words made sense. Even though I was where I wasn’t supposed to be, his words made sense. This guy reminded me of a preacher.

After all the processing, I was placed in a cell for another hour.

To be continued

Copyright by Randy Rustick
All rights reserved.