Citizen forces government to obey law

When the voters adopt a charter amendment to limit officials to four two-year terms, you would think that the government and the effected officials would obey it.

In Hawai'i County (the Big Island), the voters adopted such a limit in the 1996 election. In 2004, a long time political boss, who had already served more than 4 terms, filed nomination papers, again. Several citizens sued to block the appearance on the ballot of the long-serving politician, James Arakaki. One of those citizens is my brother-in-law Matt Binder of Kealakekua. The circuit court ruled for Arakaki.

But a couple of days ago, the Supreme Court of Hawai'i, in a 4 to 1 decision, ruled for Matt and the other plaintiffs. It is shocking that it took the court almost FOUR years to rule!
Clark, et al. v. Arakaki, et al. No. 26976

Way to go, Matt!

Here is Matt's press release:

For Immediate Release

August 29, 2008

The Supreme Court of Hawaii today issued its decision in the case of Clark v. Arakaki and County of Hawaii, overturning a Hilo Circuit Court ruling that allowed Jimmy Arakaki to serve his last term in office despite Hawaii County's term limits law.

The Court focused on two issues: first, whether the 1996 Hawaii County Term Limits Amendment was valid even though it did not have a starting date (it ruled against James Arakaki on this issue), and second, whether the application of the Charter Amendment to Arakaki would be retroactive application of the law (it ruled against Arakaki on this issue as well, on the grounds that the Amendment was certified on November 25, 1996, while Arakaki was sworn in on the first Monday in December 1996, or several days after the Charter Amendment became effective.)

Plaintiff Matt Binder reacted to the ruling saying, "Why was the Hawaii County Corporation Counsel working so hard to help Arakaki subvert our county charter? Our county attorney actually argued in court that the entire term limits law should be thrown out, a law that Arakaki voted for and the corporation counsel reviewed before it was sent to the ballot. It looks to me like the Corporation Counsel argued against that law in court just to help Arakaki stay in office because he was part of their Old Boy Network, and that's the kind of judicial political favoritism that people like George Bush and Alberto Gonzales inflict on our justice system."

Binder added, "If it hadn't been for Judge Hara's original erroneous ruling in Hilo circuit court that the Supreme Court overturned today, we wouldn't have had to endure those last two years of Jimmy Arakaki and his divisive politics. The trash issue, West Hawaii road issues, development issues, solutions to all these things were delayed as Arakaki and his fellow obstructionists on the council and in the mayor's office, people like mayoral candidates Stacey Higa and Billy Kenoi, just continued their Old-Boy business as usual."

The entire ruling can be found at the following Hawaii Supreme Court web address:

http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/26976.pdf

For more information:

Fred Paul Benco, attorney for the plaintiffs

1188 Bishop Street

Suite 3409

Honolulu, HI 96813

Tel: (808) 523-5083

fpbenco@yahoo.com

David Kimo Frankel, attorney for the plaintiffs

Volcano

808-345-5451

davidkimofrankel@hawaiiantel.net

Matt Binder, plaintiff

Kealakekua

808-324-0430

mattbinder@earthlink.net

Ole Fulks, plaintiff

Hilo

808-966-4074

Hey, Congressman -- Should the Federal government punish marijuana users?

The Honorable
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 5843

Dear Representative:

I encourage you to cosponsor H.R. 5843, a bill to eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes, introduced by Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

I appreciate that your decision to cosponsor this bill will not be made easily. Nevertheless, this bill is just and should be enacted. Current law is that “marijuana users should be punished.” The justice of that proposition must be demonstrated to defend current law.

As I make the few short arguments that follow that marijuana users should not be punished, the object of H.R. 5843, ask yourself, “is this why it is just to punish marijuana users?”

First, the act of using marijuana is not wrongful. The act does not violate the rights of others or injure others, nor is it a failure to carry out a duty such as paying taxes or caring for a minor in one’s supervision. It is wrong for the government to punish people who engage in the conduct of marijuana use or marijuana possession because the conduct is not wrongful or harmful to others.

It is not an argument to say that it is wrong to drive under the influence of marijuana, for that is different conduct, and is appropriately punishable due to the demonstrated serious risk of grave injury to others. We should note that it is not a federal crime to drive under the influence of marijuana (or any other drug or alcohol), although it is a crime in Maryland and the other states.

Nor is it an argument to say that since some marijuana users drive under the influence, we should punish those who might do so but have not. In America we do not punish people for the conduct of others, nor do we punish people for crimes they have not committed.

In opposing this bill, a thoughtful Representative should articulate why adults who use marijuana deserve a term of imprisonment of up to one year, and a minimum fine of $1000 up to $100,000, plus the costs of investigation and prosecution (21 U.S.C. 844; 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(5); 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(6)).

Second, it is wrong for the state to punish a person in order to simply dissuade other persons, such as children, not to engage in that conduct. It is an important social goal to discourage young people from experimenting with marijuana, but that educational purpose does not justify punishing adults who use marijuana. We do not punish, or threaten to punish, cigarette smokers in order to “send a message” to children that they should not experiment with tobacco. Wouldn’t you be outraged if a bill were about to be enacted that proposed to punish adults who use cigarettes or alcohol with arrest, imprisonment and fines for the purpose of discouraging youthful misuse? Indeed, cigarette use has declined dramatically without having to jail any cigarette smokers. Can you think of any conduct that we punish, other than drug use, on the asserted justification that it dissuades children from it. Considering that marijuana has been used, year after year, for the past 30 years by a large cohort of teenagers (i.e., about 20 to 25 percent of high school seniors), the punishment of adults for this communicative purpose has been ineffective, and very costly, as well as unjust.

This is not the same case as punishing a person who actually robbed a bank in order to deter other persons from robbing a bank. It is wrong to punish the innocent to send a message to others. It is not an argument here to insist that marijuana possession is against the law, because it is the justification for the law I am challenging.

Third, the harm that results to marijuana users is too insignificant to justify punishing them to stop them from using marijuana. Compared to many lawful activities, the risk is minor. Numerous “frivolous” legal activities regularly result in more deaths and injuries than marijuana use, such as downhill skiing, white water boating, recreational sailing, mountaineering, sky diving, motorcycle racing, automobile racing, recreational horse back riding, and football playing. It is inconceivable that anyone would propose punishing persons who engaged in those activities in order to prevent them from hurting themselves. The collateral consequences of an arrest and criminal prosecution and, less frequently, imprisonment, certainly outweigh the harm to the individual from his marijuana use.

We have known each other a long time, and I have been, and will continue to be, your ardent supporter. I am confident that you will take this matter seriously.

I encourage you to research the support for this issue in your district, and not make assumptions. I defer, of course, to your much better judgment about the political consequences to any given Member of Congress who co-sponsors this bill when it is based on research.

But in the final analysis, I ask you to weigh the potential political consequences to you if you support this bill against the very damaging consequences to the hundreds of persons who – having taken to heart the promise of the Congress in 1776 of a government of just powers instituted to secure certain Creator-endowed, unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – use marijuana and are punished by the Federal government each year.

With very best wishes,

Sincerely yours,

Cell Phone Application Needed

How about putting a parking garage or lot location reminder on your cell phone.

I park in the same parking garage every day. But I don't park in the same place. I could be confident that I could always park in the same area if I parked on level six. But I want to save time by parking as close to the entrance/exit as possible. That means that from day to day I am parked in a different space on a different level.

Too damn often I can't remember where my car is. Did I park on this level this morning? Or was it yesterday morning?

If I could type into my cell phone the parking space, I could always retrieve it. It could automatically recall the date and time of the entry.

What do you cell phone manufacturers think?

Stewart Mott, R.I.P.

Stewart Mott died on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

He and his foundations were major supporters of many of the people who

provided some of the intellectual heft to progressive Washington.

Washington Post obituary

New York Times obituary

Sam Smith's remembrance