Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Response to Ethics Commission charges

1,518 views

Published on

Attorney Ted Hong's response, on behalf of Connections Public Charter School administrative assistant Eric Boyd, to Hawaii State Ethics Commission.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Response to Ethics Commission charges

  1. 1. - ·, .. ITED H. S. HONG 3569Attorney at Law101 Aupuni Street, Ste. 1014 A-3P. 0. Box 4217 12 HAY 10 All :20Hilo, HI 96720Telephone No. 808.960.3156Facsimile No. 808/933.1919THSHong@msn.comAttorney for RespondentWILLIAM ERIC BOYD HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAIIHAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4 ) Complainant, ) RESPONDENTS ANSWER TO ) CHARGEANDFURTHERSTATEMENT vs. ) OF ALLEGED VIOLATION DATED ) APRIL 18, 2012; REQUEST FORWILLIAM ERIC BOYD, ) FORMAL AND CONTESTED HEARING; ) REQUEST FOR OPEN HEARING; Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RESPONDENTS ANSWER TO CHARGE AND FURTHER STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION DATED APRIL 18, 2012 COMES NOW Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD (hereinafter referred to as"Respondent") by and through his undersigned counsel and hereby submits his Answer to theCharge dated October 20, 2010, and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012pursuant to Section 84-31, Hawaii Revised Statues (hereinafter referred to as "HRS") andSection 21-5-2( c), Hawaii Administrative Rules (hereinafter referred to as "HAR"), as follows: FIRST DEFENSE-ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS (Charge dated October 20. 2010) 1. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, of the
  2. 2. t;* , ..Charge. 2. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4~41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,91,92,and93of the Charge. 3. Respondent denies any and all other allegations contained in the Charge that werenot previously addressed herein. SECOND DEFENSE-WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF INFORMATION (Charge dated October 20, 2010) 4. Respondent, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as tothe truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3, 89, and 90 of the Charge and hereby deniesthe same. THIRD DEFENSE-LACK OF JURISDICTION (Charge dated October 20, 2010) 5. Pursuant to Sections 302B-7( c) and 302B-9(a), HRS, the Hawaii State EthicsCommission has no jurisdiction-over employees ofNew Century Public Charter Schools. FOURTH DEFENSE- FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Charge dated October 20, 2010) 6. The Charge fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.FIFTH DEFENSE -VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (Charge dated October 20. 2010 and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012) 7. Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, ExecutiveDirector and representatives and employees have violated the Respondents substantive and 2
  3. 3. •procedural due process of law, including but not limited to: a. Conducting an investigation after charges had already been filed against the Respondent; b. Failing to allow Respondents counsel to adequately represent and defend him during forced and compelled interrogations by Complainants; c. Unlawfully invading the Attorney-Client Privilege between Respondents counsel and Respondent; d. Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees are fundamentally and legally incapable of hearing or rendering a fair, impartial decision on the charges in this matter as they have been unlawfully briefed by the Complainant, its Executive Director and its counsel, about the substance of the charges against the Respondent, and predetermined the Respondents guilt in the present matter. e. The Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees have predetermined the Respondents guilt by: (1) filing the charges against the Respondent on October 20, 2010; (2) allowing Complainants counsel to conduct further investigation after the charges had been filed and the Respondent having formally answered the October 20, 2010 charges; (3) exploiting the Respondents Answer to the October 20 I 0 charges by delaying any hearing to wrongfully use their investigative powers to counter the Respondents defenses; (4) delaying any hearing on the charges in the present matter until the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, 3
  4. 4. • Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees manipulated a change in the laws applicable to State employees to negate the Respondents defenses to the original October 20, 2010 charge; (5) after successfully manipulating the Legislature to change the law to negate the Respondents defenses, the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees filed a second set of charges reflected in the Further Statement of Alleged Violation. 8. That such actions deprived the Respondent of a legally cognizable defense. 9. The Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, ExecutiveDirector and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practice andconspiracy to deprive the Respondent ofhis constitutional right to due process of law, includingbut not limited to a fair, impartial and unbiased hearing on the October 20, 2010 charges and thefurther charges filed on April18, 2012, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1983. 10. That the Further Statement ofViolation dated April18, 2012, was broughtresulting from a conspiracy between the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees to single out, punish andretaliate against the Respondent for having filed a civil action against the Complainant andExecutive Director and make hold the Respondent out as an example to any and all future Stateemployees not to oppose or challenge the Complainant in any manner. 11. That the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,Executive Director and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practiceand conspiracy of manipulating the charges and law in order for an improper purpose including 4
  5. 5. • but not limited to, engaging in a discriminatory pattern, practice and conspiracy to engage in a discriminatory action against the Respondent including by manipulating the charges and law against the Respondent in order to force the Respondent to plead guilty to the present charges or find the Respondent automatically guilty of the present charges without regard to the Respondents defenses and evidence. 12. That the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,Executive Director and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practiceand conspiracy of depriving the Respondent of due process to have a hearing held in a timelymanner, in violation of its own rules and regulations and that as a result of the Complainant, itsChairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives andemployees intentional delay in setting the public hearing concerning the charges in the presentmatter, the Respondent has been deprived of his constitutional right to adequately defend himselfdue to the passage of time and is unconstitutionally prejudiced because the memories ofwitnesses have faded, evidence has been lost and the Complainant, its Chairperson, ViceChairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees have beenengaged in a pattern, practice and conspiracy of refusing to produce any statement ofwitnesses,and transcripts of forced interrogations made under oath or any evidence that the Respondent canuse to defend himself or adequately prepare his defense. SIXTH DEFENSE-ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS (Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18. 2012. 13. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs I.A.l and 2; I.B.3, 4, 5,6, 7; II.A.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, II.B.l9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; 5
  6. 6. III.A.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, III.B.39, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,and 52 of the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012. 14. Respondent denies any and all other allegations contained in the FurtherStatement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012 that were not previously addressed herein. SEVENTH DEFENSE-WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF INFORMATION (Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated Aprill8, 2012.) 15. · Respondent, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as tothe truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs I.A.l and 2; I.B.3, 4, 5, 6, 7; II.A.8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, II.B.l9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; III.A.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,35, 36, 37, III.B.39, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 ofthe FurtherStatement of Alleged Violation dated Apri118, 2012 and hereby denies the same. EIGHTH DEFENSE-LACK OF JURISDICTION (Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated Aprill8, 2012.) 16. Pursuant to Sections 302B-7( c) and 302B-9(a), HRS, the Hawaii State EthicsCommission has no jurisdiction over employees ofNew Century Public Charter Schools. 17. The 20 12 law that makes employees of Charter Schools "state employees" maynot be enforced retroactively. NINTH DEFENSE- FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ((Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18. 2012.) 18. The Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April 18, 2012 fails to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted. TENTH DEFENSE- VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS (Charge dated October 20, 2010 and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated Aprill8, 2012) 6
  7. 7. 19. That the Complainant has exceeded the time to bring the Charge dated October 20,2010 and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012. 20. That the Complaint,, by and through its officers, agents, representatives andemployees, violated Chapter 84, HRS and Title 21, chapters 1 through and including 6, HAR byfiling the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April 18, 2012, without any legalauthority or following proper procedures. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, prays that the Commission: (a) Find that the Complainant, by and through its officers, agents, representatives andemployees, have deprived the Respondent of his constitutional due process rights and dismiss theCharge dated October 20, 2010 and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18,2012; (b) Find that the Complainant, by and through its officers, agents, representatives andemployees, have deprived the Respondent of his constitutional due process rights and dismiss theCharge dated October 20, 2010 and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April 18,2012 were brought for an improper purpose and dismiss the charges; ( c) Find that the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,Executive Director and representatives and employees are incapable of hearing, deciding orrendering an impartial, unbiased and objective manner and/or decision and dismiss the chargesagainst the Respondent; ( d) Find that the Commission has no jurisdiction over New Century Public CharterSchools and its employees and may not retroactively apply any new laws as an excuse to ensnare 7
  8. 8. ·. .· the Respondent and find him guilty of the present charges; (e) Find that the Complainant, its Executive Director, its officers, agents and employees wrongfully delayed the hearing in the present case depriving the Respondent of his constitutional protections to adequately prepare his defense due to the passage of time and was unconstitutionally prejudiced because the memories of witnesses have faded, evidence has beenlost and the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Directorand representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practice and conspiracy ofrefusing to produce any statement of witnesses, and transcripts of forced interrogations madeunder oath or any evidence that the Respondent can use to defend himself or adequately preparehis defense (f) Find that Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD did not violate Chapter 84, HRS; (g) Find that the Complainant, its Executive Director, its officers, agents and employeesviolated the Respondents substantive and procedural due process rights by unlawfullydiscriminating against the Respondent; (h) Find that the Complainant, its Executive Director, its officers, agents and employeesconducted the present investigation in a grossly negligent and unprofessional manner which roseto the level of violating the Respondents substantive and procedural due process rights; (i) In the alternative, find that actions set forth in the Charge were de minimus and fail torise to the level of any violation of Chapter 84, HRS; G) Find that the Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD acted at all times in good faith; (k) Award Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD any fees and costs arising from thiscase; 8
  9. 9. • : (1) Award Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD any other relief within its discretion, andthat is equitable; (m) Initiate proceedings to terminate the continued employment of the ExecutiveDirector, Stanley Chong, Esq., and any other officers, agents, representatives and employees whoactively participated in the present case, for their grossly negligent mishandling of the presentcharges and investigation against the Respondent, including but not limited to a violation of theRespondents substantive and procedural due process rights, in exchange for the Respondentwaiving any future litigation against the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees in their individualcapacities. DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012. ~{{Lfj ;;;~ Attorney at Law Attorney for Respondent WILLIAM ERIC BOYD 9
  10. 10. ·. , . I HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAIIHAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4 ) Complainant, ) REQUEST FOR FORMAL AND ) CONTESTED HEARING vs. ) )WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, ) ) Respondent. ) REQUEST FOR FORMAL AND CONTESTED HEARING COMES NOW Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD (hereinafter referred to as"Respondent") by and through his undersigned counsel and hereby requests that the hearing onthe Charge and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation, dated April 18, 2012, in the presentcase be a formal and contested case hearing pursuant to Chapter 91, HRS and 21-5-5, 21-5-6 and21-5-7, HAR. DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012. xl:/2(~/)/H Attorney at Law Attorney for Respondent WILLIAM ERIC BOYD
  11. 11. . I HAWAli STATE ETHICS COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAIIHAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4 ) Complainant, ) REQUEST FOR OPEN HEARING ) vs. ) )WILLIAM ERJC BOYD, ) ) Respondent. ) REQUEST FOR OPEN HEARING COMES NOW Respondent, WILLIAM ERJC BOYD (hereinafter referred to as"Respondent") by and through his undersigned counsel and hereby requests that the hearing onthe Charge and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation, dated April 18, 2012 in the presentcase be open to the public and news media pursuant to Section 21-5-6, HAR, to demonstrate theComplainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director andrepresentatives and employees: (1) grossly negligent mishandling of the investigation, Chargeand Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April IS, 2012; (2) the deprivation oftheRespondents substantive and procedural due process rights by the Complainant, theChairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives andemployees inability to conduct, hold and decide the charges against the Respondent in a fair,objective and impartial manner; (3) how the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees have prejudged the issuesin the present case; and (4) how the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees attempt to punish the
  12. 12. : t .~Respondent through discriminatory and unlawful actions in violation of federal and stateconstitutional protections. DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012 Attorney at Law Attorney for Respondent WILLIAM ERIC BOYD 2
  13. 13. .• .. ".. ,. : ... HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION STATE OF HA WAilHAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4 ) Complainant, ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) vs. ) )WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, ) ) Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoingdocument to be served on the following persons by facsimile or U.S. mail, postage prepaid (asindicated below) to their respective addresses:STANLEY K. W. CHONG, ESQ.Hawaii State Ethics CommissionAmerican Savings Bank Tower1001 Bishop Street, Suite 970Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Attorney for ComplainantHA WAil STATE ETHICS COMMISSION DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012 ~{)!JJ{h Attorney at Law Attorney for Respondent WILLIAM ERIC BOYD

×