Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
55
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
BEFORE THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION
ISLAND OF OAHU
In the Matter of ) EVIDENTIARY HEARING
)
RICHARD W. BAKER, )
)
Appellant, )
and ) VOLUME II
) (Pages 55 - 186)
BRICKWOOD M. GALUTERIA; )
ABIGAIL L. GALUTERIA; and )
GLEN TAKAHASHI, in his )
official capacity as City )
Clerk, City and County of )
Honolulu, )
)
Appellees. )
____________________________)
The above matter came on for hearing at the
law offices of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP,
Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor, 500 Ala Moana
Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, commencing at 1:05
p.m., on Saturday, December 5, 2015.
BEFORE: ALAN B. BURDICK, Chairperson
ELISE ANDERSON, Board Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: RICHARD W. BAKER
Appellant, Pro Se
206 Lumahai Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96825
For the Appellees WILLIAM C. MCCORRISTON, ESQ.
Brickwood M. Galuteria JESSICA M. WAN, ESQ.
and Abigail L. McCorriston Miller Mukai
Galuteria: MacKinnon
P.O. Box 2800
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
APPEARANCES (Continued):
For the Appellee ERNEST H. NOMURA, ESQ.
Glen Takahashi, LESLIE CHINN, ESQ.
Acting City Clerk: Deputies Corporation Counsel
Department of the Corporation
Counsel
530 S. King Street, Room 110
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Also Present: VALRI KUNIMOTO,
Deputy Attorney General
GALEN FOX
BRICKWOOD GALUTERIA
GLEN TAKAHASHI
MARGARET BAKER
KIMBERLY RIBELLIA
WINTEHN PARK
Reported by: Donna N. Baba, CSR #103
Certified Shorthand Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
I N D E X
PAGE:
WITNESSES:
FOR THE APPELLEES:
BRICKWOOD GALUTERIA
Direct Examination by Mr. McCorriston 63
Cross-Examination by Mr. Baker 71
Examination by Chairperson Burdick 102
Further Examination by Mr. Baker 112
FOR THE CITY CLERK APPELLEE:
GLEN TAKAHASHI
Direct Examination by Mr. Nomura 113
Cross-Examination by Mr. Baker 123
Redirect Examination by Mr. Nomura 161
Examination by Board Member Anderson 162
Further Examination by Mr. Baker 166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: We're going to reconvene
at this point the Board of Registration for Oahu
hearings on the voter qualifications of Brickwood
Galuteria and his wife, Abigail Galuteria. Today is
Saturday, December 5, at approximately 10 minutes after
1:00 o'clock, and we are convening in the law offices of
William McCorriston, et al., at Waterfront Plaza today.
Before we proceed with further direct
proceedings I wanted to put on the record a summary of
the discussion that we had on Wednesday, December 2nd,
which was supposed to be our reconvening of these
proceedings, but Ms. Anderson was unable to attend, and
in a course of discussing scheduling matters,
Mr. Baker, the Appellant, asked to reopen the
proceedings for him to put on additional witnesses.
Initially he said the resident manager of the Royal
Capitol Plaza at Curtis Street, and others, but it
boiled down to the resident manager, and it boiled down
further that Mr. Baker did not actually know what the
resident manager, whose name he did not have, would
actually testify to.
I had opened the discussion up to this,
because out of an excess of caution in dealing with a
pro se party I wanted to make sure that if there were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
something out there that might seem to be a gross
miscarriage of justice, we would look at it. That did
not mean that I was committed to agreeing to reopening
the proceedings, nor was anyone else on this Board, but
simply wanted to get this information out.
And the bottom line, as I understood it, was
that Mr. Baker had not communicated with this resident
manager, did not know what he or she might say, and
that we would be basically conducting investigation, or
at best, discovery during these evidentiary
proceedings. It's my view, and Ms. Anderson concurs,
that this is an inappropriate time or place for
discovery proceedings or investigation proceedings, and
we're not going to allow that, so we will proceed with
the evidentiary hearing as scheduled, and I will ask
for anyone who participated in the discussion who wants
to amend, correct or elaborate on what I just
summarized, please feel free to do so.
Ms. Anderson.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So just to clarify, we
were talking about -- I asked Alan why we had opened it
up, because as I understood it the case had been rested
on Monday, and specifically he said we wanted to avoid
inadvertence or excusable neglect, so I just wanted to
put that on the record precisely.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. I would clarify,
we hadn't opened it up, but was discussing to ascertain
whether or not there might be grounds for opening it up.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. McCorriston, did you
want to say something?
MR. McCORRISTON: No. That I think the
Chairman is correct because we had started our case.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, go ahead.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I just would note that
HAR 3-172-43(f)(3) allows for witnesses by the
petitioner to be called in rebuttal after respondents
called their witnesses. HAR 3-172-43(g) authorizes the
subpoenaing of witnesses. I therefore intend, once the
respondents have called their witnesses, to repeat my
call for these two individuals to be called to testify.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. We are not
there yet, Mr. Baker.
Do you want to respond to that first,
Mr. McCorriston, before I do?
MR. McCORRISTON: I'd just prefer to start,
continue with my case.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes, okay.
All right. Mr. Baker, it's the inclination
of the Chair of the Board that if you want to call
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
rebuttal witnesses, you'll need to give us an offer of
proof as to what they will say. We're not going to
open it up for rebuttal witnesses so that you can
conduct exploratory investigations as to what might or
might not come up if a witness is brought in to
testify. So I'll need to see an offer of proof.
MR. McCORRISTON: Just one elaboration,
Mr. Chairman, is that there were no rebuttal witnesses
listed on the statements filed by Mr. Baker.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Then Mr. Chair, I would just note
that there is nothing in the instructions in
Section 3-172-43 that would require a statement by
ourselves as to what exactly this individual would say
if he were called, so I'm a bit surprised by that, what
I would have to regard as an arbitrary ruling by the
Chair.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: I don't think it's
material what the witness would say specifically, but I
think that whether or not the rebuttal witness is listed
on the -- beforehand, whether that's required is more
important than what he would actually say.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: At this point, rather
than debating this further, typically because it may be
hypothetical at this point, I'll ask Mr. McCorriston to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
go ahead and proceed because it's the Appellees' turn,
or primary appellees' turn to put on their case.
Go ahead, Mr. McCorriston.
MR. McCORRISTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I call Senator Galuteria, I note that
we filed supplemental declarations of Brickwood
Galuteria and Lehua Galuteria. Just to clarify, I
think in the original declarations with regard to
paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of Mr. Galuteria's
declaration, and paragraph 6 of Lehua's declaration,
the word "currently" was in there, and that the
declarations as filed were absolutely correct as to
before the 2014 election and the year after the 2014
election. But recently Mr. Galuteria's daughter and
grandchildren rejoined her husband, and so they
currently have left the Palolo residence.
That fact is stated in the amended
declarations. Not that it's terribly relevant to the
time period in question, I just wanted to make sure we
clarified and corrected any suggestion that we're being
misleading as to the word "currently" in the original
declarations.
With that, I would call Mr. Brickwood
Galuteria, Senator, to the witness stand.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Sir, would you raise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
your right hand.
Whereupon,
BRICKWOOD GALUTERIA,
called as a witness on behalf of the Appellees,
being first duly sworn by the Chairperson, was examined
and testified as follows:
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MCCORRISTON:
Q. Shall I call you Mister, Senator, Brickwood?
A. Anything you want, Counselor.
Q. So since I know you, may I call you Brickwood?
A. That's fine; that's fine. Thank you.
Q. Brickwood, would you give the Board your current
residential address, please?
A. 876 Curtis Street, Apartment 2804 -- 2408,
rather.
Q. And how long have you resided there?
A. We've resided there since the second term, which
was 2010, 2011.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Excuse me, Senator,
could you please speak up.
THE WITNESS: Okay. 2011.
Q. (By Mr. Mccorriston) In what political district
is the Curtis Street residence a part of?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Senate District 12, which is Kakaako, Ala Moana,
Waikiki, McCully, Moiliili.
Q. Is that the district you currently represent as
senator?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to moving to Curtis Street, where did you
and Lehua reside?
A. 1088 Bishop Street, Apartment 2812.
Q. Just to be clear, it wasn't the Palolo residence?
A. Right.
Q. And could you describe where on Bishop Street
this residence is, if it has a name or --
A. It's the Executive Centre.
Q. The Executive Centre.
A. On the corner of Hotel and Bishop.
Q. And how long did you and Lehua reside at the
Bishop Street residence?
A. About 2007 to 2011.
Q. 2007 to 2011?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time you were living in the Bishop
Street residence, what senatorial district was that
residence a part of?
A. It was a part of Senate District 12, which
extended at that time all the way down to Kapalama
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Canal.
Q. At some time were the boundaries to Senatorial
District No. 12 changed?
A. Yes. It changed for the 2012 electorial. That
particular election moved a lot of lines. It was a
reapportionment of the district.
Q. And after the lines were moved, did the Bishop
Street address fall within a different district?
A. Yes, 13. So the district now actually begins
right here on South Street, this way.
Q. So the South Street would form the western
boundary line for District No. 12?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the change of the district line play any role
in you moving to the Curtis Street apartment?
A. It was the primary reason. We wanted to continue
serving the district.
Q. And when you were at the Bishop Street residence,
did you receive mail in the same fashion you're
receiving your mail at the Curtis Street residence?
A. That was the residence; that was the residence.
So we have a lot of indication that we were there.
Q. So if Mr. Baker put in his pleadings that your
residence prior to the time of Curtis Street was in the
Palolo Valley residence, that would be incorrect?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. That would be false.
Q. So just to be clear, prior to the 2014 election
you had resided at Bishop Street. When the district
lines were changed, you moved to the Curtis Street to
remain in District 12; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you've read the declaration, your
own declarations and Lehua's declarations as corrected.
Is the information contained in those declarations true
and correct according to your personal knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Questioning has come up about the parking
situation at -- I have the same problem, I'm just going
to call it RCP, if you don't mind -- at RCP. Can you
explain to the Board what the parking situation is, with
particular emphasis on whether or not it's necessary to
go through the lobby to get from the parking structure
to your unit.
A. Yeah, the parking structure is -- the entry is --
you need a fob. So you swipe it and you come up to the
second floor. Well, it's actually the half floor. And
then you come up to the second floor, which is where our
parking stall is located. And from there you can enter
the Royal Capitol Plaza directly to the elevators and
head on up to the unit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. So --
A. Is that what you mean?
Q. Yes. So that means you can bypass -- you don't
have to go through the lobby to get to the units?
A. No, no.
Q. And you already mentioned this somewhat in your
declaration, are you currently the caregiver for your
mother, primary caregiver?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you reviewed the letter from the doctor who
treats your mother in this case. Are her conditions as
stated in that letter consistent with your understanding
of her medical condition?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And has it been suggested by the medical care
providers for your mother that somebody from the family
reside with her as much as possible?
A. To this day, yes.
MR. BAKER: Objection, Mr. Chair. That fact
has not be entered in the record in any place other than
the verbal form in which Mr. McCorriston has just put
it.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: What fact has not been
entered?
MR. BAKER: That the caregiver is desired by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
the medical counsel for Mrs. Galuteria.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, as I understand,
Senator just testified to that.
MR. McCORRISTON: He just testified.
MR. BAKER: He's just testified to it, yes.
It has not come up prior to this point, nor in any of
the affirmations provided.
MR. McCORRISTON: In Exhibit A, the term
primary caregiver is used in Exhibit A, and it's just
been reaffirmed by the witness.
Q. (By Mr. Mccorriston) With regard to the resident
manager at RCP -- oh, you and your mother were renters,
and the unit, I believe, is 2408; is that correct?
A. Yeah. 2408, yeah.
Q. And you were present when the three witnesses
testified in this case on behalf of Mr. Baker; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all, who was your political opponent in
the 2014 election?
A. Chris Lethem.
Q. To your knowledge has Mr. Baker ever been at RCP?
A. No.
Q. Ever seen him there?
A. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. Do you know how many units there are in RCP?
A. No.
Q. Quite a few?
A. There's a lot of floors there, yes. About ten to
a floor.
Q. Have you ever seen any of the witnesses in this
case that testified for Mr. Baker on the 24th floor of
RCP?
A. No.
MR. MCCORRISTON: That's all the questions I
have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
MR. McCORRISTON: Excuse me, I do have one
more area before --
Q. (By Mr. Mccorriston) Do you have any current
plans of leaving Curtis Street and residing elsewhere?
A. Actually, we do.
Q. And could you tell the Board what those plans
were and what prompted those plans?
A. The -- I'm a dual caregiver, if you will, with --
for my mother, who has a multiple -- a variety of
illnesses that are not readily evident sometimes, and
then my wife has taken ill. '14 was an especially rough
year for us. She has a condition called COPD.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: You mean '15?
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: You said '14. You
mean '15, right?
THE WITNESS: No, '14 was a big -- was a rough
year for -- this is '15.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes.
THE WITNESS: But '14 especially was a rough
year for us, as '15 continues to be as well.
So in order to improve the situation, we're
going to be relocating from Curtis Street to the Moana
Pacific, primarily because my wife's pulmonary disease
requires central air-conditioning. We don't have
central air-conditioning at the Royal Capitol Plaza.
And in that, we're going to expand the living
conditions and enter into a three-bedroom, which will
allow all of us to be a little bit more comfortable.
Because obviously comfort was a consideration for those
who are complaining, not that we were complaining, but
that's our situation.
Q. (By Mr. Mccorriston) Have you taken concrete
steps, actually, to rent the -- a new place?
A. We put down a down payment, and we intend to move
in by January 1st.
Q. And when you say we move in, does that include
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Juliette, your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. Yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. And Lehua?
A. Yes.
Q. And then what will you folks do with the Palolo
home?
A. We're going to rent it out. We have several
units up there that we rent to, and we want to ensure
that the place is used for good, so I've taken steps to
go and talk with the friends at IHS to see if perhaps
some of those homeless guys, if they pass muster, we
could offer them housing.
Q. So once you folks move into Ala Moana, the
intention of the family is to rent out the Palolo house?
A. Yes.
MR. McCORRISTON: I have further questions,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Baker?
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Mr. Galuteria, I'm showing you a floor plan for
Apartment 2408, Royal Capitol Plaza.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That's your Exhibit
No. --
THE WITNESS: 20.
MR. BAKER: Introduce our Exhibit No. 20.
Q. And I would like to ask you, is this the unit
that you claim to live in?
A. That's the unit I live in.
Q. Hmm?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it 548 square feet?
A. I don't count. It's small.
Q. It's small. I think my figure of 548 square feet
should stand.
A. That's fine.
Q. Can you show me on that diagram where your bed
is?
A. We have a beautiful, comfortable pull-out sofa
right here in the living room.
MR. McCORRISTON: Let the record indicate that
the Senator pointed to a location in the living room on
the exhibit.
THE WITNESS: Shall I --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes, go ahead.
MR. McCORRISTON: Why don't you put an X there
where the --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Senator's going to put
an X on this copy of Exhibit 20 to show the location of
the pull out sofa in the unit at Royal Capitol --
MR. McCORRISTON: The living room section of
the unit.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) And where is your wife's bed?
A. We sleep in the same bed, sir.
Q. Okay. And your mother's bed?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Senator, would you mark
that, your mother's bed with a M.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Or J, for Juliette.
THE WITNESS: M is fine; M for mom.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Let the
record reflect that Senator has marked an X near the L,
for the word "living room" on this copy of Exhibit 20,
and has marked an X with a M near it, near the letter M
of the word "bedroom" on this copy of exhibit to show
the location of the mother's bed.
This will be put in the record. When
senator's done testifying, we'll put that in the
record.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) And Mr. Galuteria, where is your
own closet?
A. We all share the same closet. There's enough
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
room for everybody.
Q. Enough room for everybody?
A. We have enough room for everybody.
Q. Would you just put an X with a C next to it for
the closet, please?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: For the closet?
MR. BAKER: The closet, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Which he says is used by all three
people in the --
THE WITNESS: Right there.
MR. BAKER: Okay, thank you. Should this go
back to --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: It will go to the court
reporter.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Now, Mr. Galuteria, you say that
you are a primary caregiver?
A. Yes.
Q. But that covers various levels of assistance?
A. Yes.
Q. What care does your mother need that you need to
live with her?
A. Medications, finances. My mom looks great, but
even in your particular testifiers, they could not be
specific about what caregiving is defined as.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
My definition of caregiving -- are you asking me
my definition of caregiving.
Q. Sure.
A. Quality of life. I'm not going to wait until the
day I got to feed my mom with a spoon. I want her to be
up and running. She's doing very well, and I would
suspect it has to do with some caregiving.
Q. Now, I would just note, Mr. Galuteria, that the
certificate that you submitted from the physician in no
way states what kind of care she may need and why that
should require physical presence by you on a continuing
basis.
A. So what? So what, Mr. Baker?
Q. Wouldn't it be advantageous if you were trying to
establish that you were required --
A. I'm not trying to establish anything, I'm trying
to care for my mom. You're the one trying to establish
that I'm not.
Q. Well, I'm just going to take that as sarcasm,
Mr. Senator.
A. Well, whatever.
Q. And as a refusal to answer the question.
A. I answered the question.
Q. No, you didn't.
MR. McCORRISTON: I object to the argument of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
counsel, or Mr. Baker.
MS. KUNIMOTO: He made an objection that it's
argumentative. Are you going to rule?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I'm sorry, I missed
that.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Should we ask him to
restate his question?
MS. KUNIMOTO: No, you can ask the court
reporter to repeat it.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Court Reporter,
could you restate the question that is subjected to the
objection?
MR. McCORRISTON: It wasn't even a question,
he was just talking to him.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Oh, I saw that. I
didn't hear a question.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Mr. Baker mentioned a
question. So to what question were you referring?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right, Court
Reporter will read back the relevant discussion.
(The record was read by the court reporter.)
MR. McCORRISTON: I move to strike that whole
colloquy.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I'll deny it, but we'll
take into account the nature of the discussion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
MR. McCORRISTON: It also misrepresents
Exhibit A of ours, which does state that Mr. Galuteria
is to be the primary caregiver for his mother, right
there in the first paragraph of the exhibit. So
additional objection to his question is misstates what's
in evidence.
MR. BAKER: Objection, Mr. Chair, as the
exhibit does not provide any definition of caregiving.
MR. MCCORRISTON: It says --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That's argument, sir.
You can --
MR. McCORRISTON: That's incorrect. It says
primary caregiver.
MR. BAKER: Nor does it provide --
MR. MCCORRISTON: That's a definition.
MR. BAKER: -- any definition of primary
caregiver.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I understand, okay.
You've made your point. Let's move on.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Is your mother able to manage
herself when you go on trips?
A. Yes, I suppose. When I'm away.
Q. You suppose?
A. What are you getting to?
Q. I'm wondering who takes care of her when you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
aren't there.
A. My mom takes care of herself because what we do
is we plan the meds ahead of time, we plan the finances
ahead of time.
Q. So you're saying -- am I correct in interpreting
your statement as indicating that --
A. We plan.
Q. -- your continual presence at 2408 is not
actually required?
A. Nobody's continual presence anywhere is required,
unless we're looking for assisted living, and she's not
there yet.
MR. BAKER: I object. That's not a response.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: It is a response.
Please move on.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why doesn't your mother live with
you in your $1.8 million Palolo home where everybody has
room, and relatives can help look over their tutu?
A. First of all, one of the important parts of
caregiving is to honor my mom's independence, and I take
great, great effort in doing that. Secondly, it's close
to our church. My mom does a lot of work at Kawaiahao
Church. It's a block and a half from the church. I
want to honor her with that. That's my answer.
Q. And am I to assume that that has nothing to do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
with the coincidence that your residence at 2408 Curtis
Street technically would provide you a residence within
the district?
A. Oh, that's inference.
MR. McCORRISTON: It's argumentative.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Can I point out that
the Senator did state earlier on the record that it was
his primary -- that reapportionment was a primary reason
for moving, so I don't think that's in dispute as to why
he lives in his district.
MR. BAKER: Well, he didn't mention his
mother's condition in that context. I will move on.
MR. McCORRISTON: You know, I really object to
Mr. Baker's continual argument on his case just without
a question. Just inappropriate.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, you will have
the opportunity at the close of presentation of
everybody's evidence to make your closing argument and,
you know, refer back to testimony, refer back to
exhibits, whatever you like.
But Mr. McCorriston is correct, it's not
appropriate for you to keep on interjecting argument
into the questioning. Just make notes, and Mr. Fox is
next to you, he's probably making notes as well, you'll
have notes for your argument when the time comes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, does the same term
apply to Mr. McCorriston?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. And I'm not going
to let Mr. McCorriston make argument all the time
either. He is making objections, and in making an
objection he has to state what the grounds of the
objection are.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why did your wife initially give
the wrong address for your mother's place when she
registered to vote in 2012?
A. I don't know.
Q. Asked and answered.
Did she move into your mother's unit?
A. Who?
Q. Your wife.
MR. McCORRISTON: Can we have a point of time,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes.
MR. BAKER: In 2011, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: In when?
MR. BAKER: When she registered to vote in the
2012 election.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what I'm being
asked of.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Mr. Baker,
could you restate your question, please?
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Yes. Why did your wife initially
give the wrong address for your mother's place?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: He's already answered
that, he said he did not know.
MR. BAKER: When she registered to vote in
2012, to which he responded he -- you don't know.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. All right, next
question.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) My next question was, did she
move into your mother's unit, and if so, when?
A. Oh, you can't refer to it as my mother's unit,
it's my unit. So we moved there together, she's my
wife.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, would it be relevant to
note in this regard that the rental agreement for this
unit is in the name of Mr. Galuteria's mother,
therefore, allowing us to refer to it as his mother's
unit?
MR. McCORRISTON: Well, I object because
that's a misstatement of the facts. Originally it was
in Mr. Galuteria's and his mother's name, then as he
said in his declarations, unbeknownst to him the mother
did a rental agreement, and then since it's been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
superseded a third time with him back on the rental
agreement. So what you're saying is a misstatement of
facts in evidence.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, let's unpack
and unload the question and simply refer to it as the
unit, without the baggage of whose unit, and you can
save for argument whatever discussion you want to make
in terms of who signed the lease, at what period of
time, and how that's a material matter for us to be
considering. So save that for argument, and please just
focus on the question of the unit rather than loading it
with who is the actual renter.
MR. BAKER: I am simply trying to clarify why
Mrs. Galuteria misstated the address of the apartment
when she had supposedly been living there for over a
year.
MR. McCORRISTON: Asked and answered. He
doesn't know.
MR. BAKER: The answer is, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That is correct.
MR. McCORRISTON: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Okay. Continuing right on, can
you describe to me the process by which your
three-person family gets ready for the day's activities
in the morning, considering that the three of you share
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
one bathroom.
A. The same way other three-member families get
ready for the day.
Q. Where does your wife keep her clothes?
MR. McCORRISTON: Asked and answered. He
already said under oath that they shared the closet.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why does your wife have no
assigned parking stall after four years in the building?
A. We have one car.
Q. May I just note that that is contrary to the
evidence provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles?
A. Well --
Q. They're wrong, huh?
A. Whether they're wrong or they're right, I have
one car that we use.
Q. What is the number of the stall in which you park
your only car when you are at the Curtis Street
residence?
A. I don't know. I think it's 201, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure. It doesn't matter, I know where it is.
MR. BAKER: He thinks it's 201, but he doesn't
know, and it doesn't matter.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Please, that's argument.
Move on to your next question.
MR. BAKER: I'm simply repeating his answer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
for clarity.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Can you explain why so few people
seem to see your wife around Royal Capitol Plaza?
MR. McCORRISTON: I object to the form of the
question. It's not been established.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Not only that, it's
calling for speculation.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Did you subscribe to any
magazines to be delivered to your mother's unit?
A. The unit, you mean?
MR. FOX: Yes, the unit.
MR. BAKER: The unit.
A. The unit, no, yeah. No, I didn't subscribe to
any magazines. As a matter of fact, the Royal Capitol
Plaza has ample magazines down in the lobby.
Q. Did you have insurance policies, car insurance,
renter's insurance, et cetera, cellular phone bills and
tax returns mailed to your mother's residence?
A. They were offered as evidence.
Q. Are you telling me that beyond what was offered
as evidence there is no other documentation?
A. Am I required to?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: No, just --
MR. BAKER: Well, I would just remind you that
the City Clerk said that that information was not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
offered as evidence, despite having been requested.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Despite what? I'm
sorry.
MR. BAKER: Having been requested by the
Clerk. I'm sure Mr. Galuteria doesn't know.
MR. McCORRISTON: You know, the gratuitous
comments, even after your admonition, keep coming.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Mr. Galuteria the law requires
you to retain tax records, does it not?
A. Yes, mm-hmm.
Q. Now, your records show that you paid back the
exemption -- (Off-the-record discussion between Mr. Fox
and Mr. Baker.)
MR. BAKER: Well, I would just note that even
though the law requires these records --
MR. MCCORRISTON: Excuse me.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, if you're
making argument, save it. The time now is for you to
ask questions of Mr. Galuteria. If you have any more
questions, go ahead and ask them.
MR. BAKER: What I asked Mr. Galuteria was,
the law requires you to retain tax records, does it not?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right, I'll accept
that as a foundational question. He's answered it
already "yes." Next question.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Do you keep these records?
A. Yes.
Q. Where do you keep these records?
A. 876 Curtis Street.
Q. And since I understand from other documents that
you have claimed that your tax records are prepared by
professional CPA or equivalent expert, would it be --
could I ask if that professional also retains copies of
your records?
MR. McCORRISTON: You know, where are we going
with this? This is --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes, where are you going
with this question? I mean these are all very
foundational, preliminary kinds of questions. Why don't
you just get to the meat of the question that -- the
question that addresses the meat of the issue of what
you're focused on.
MR. McCORRISTON: I further note that tax
records are protected by federal and state statutes, and
privacy.
MR. BAKER: Well, the question is whether the
Curtis Street address shows on these records, but in the
face of your arguments, I will not pursue that point at
this time.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Your records show that you paid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
back the exemption on your Palolo home where you live.
That was two months after you hired an attorney. Did
your attorney advise you to pay the back taxes?
MR. McCORRISTON: I instruct him not to
answer. Attorney-client privilege.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: It's waivable, but if he
chooses not to answer, he chooses not to answer.
Senator, are you choosing not to answer the
question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Do you consider your mother's
condominium as your home?
MR. McCORRISTON: I object to the form of the
question, referring it to his mother's condominium. The
witness has testified repeatedly that it's their joint
condominium rental.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. Mr. Baker, again,
I'm going to ask you to please unload the baggage from
the question you want, and say you claim that the Curtis
Street address is your home, that way you take out
mother, him, the wife, whoever.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Next question, do the Galuteria's
have the required sticker on the back window of your
car?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: What kind of sticker,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
sir?
MR. BAKER: The Royal Capitol Plaza parking
sticker.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: On Mr. Galuteria's car?
MR. BAKER: (Nods head.)
A. As far as I know, we do not have the need for a
sticker. This is what you need to get into the parking
lot, you need a fob.
MR. McCORRISTON: Let the record reflect the
witness is holding up a fob, which is an entry tool for
the RCP.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Are you registered with the
resident manager as a tenant resident at Royal Capitol
Plaza?
A. I never knew I had to register as a tenant. I
have a lease that indicates I live at the Royal Capitol
Plaza, and through this entire time that I've been
there, the resident manager has not contacted me at all.
Q. Are you aware of the name of the resident
manager?
A. They change. I'm not aware of the current.
Q. Tell us about your friends at Royal Capitol
Plaza. Why did none of these individuals come forward
as witnesses when the Clerk asked you to supply such
witnesses?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. I didn't feel it was necessary to bother anybody
for this type of proceedings, when everything having to
do with this is inference.
Q. Why did you --
MR. FOX: Is that an objectionable comment,
the line he threw in at the end?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Fox, if you want to
whisper something to Mr. Baker, that's fine, but you've
been told before that you're not participating in the
proceedings.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why did you deny the Clerk access
to your mother's unit when that would help show you were
actually living at Royal Capitol Plaza?
A. I believe that it was an intrusion into my life.
I provided pictures, down to the tooth brush.
Q. Where is the picture of double bed in the living
room?
A. We didn't pull out the sofa.
Q. There is no picture of a sofa of any sort.
A. Oh, it depends on what you consider a sofa to be.
Q. And why does the shot allegedly of clothing in a
closet only show your clothing, not your wife's
clothing, not your mother's clothing?
A. You know, the pictures show dresses. It could be
either my wife's or my mother's.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. Next question: Why did you tell the Clerk that
you spend, quote, a great majority of the time at your
Palolo home?
MR. McCORRISTON: Objection. Assumes a state
of facts not in evidence.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. Mr. Baker, can you
cite some statement by the Clerk or --
MR. BAKER: Clerk's letter is dated
December 6th, 2014, and it makes that statement.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Let's take a moment.
MR. McCORRISTON: Can we have an exhibit
number?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. I don't have an
exhibit for that. I don't know.
MR. FOX: It's in our packet. It's also in
another one.
MR. MCCORRISTON: If it's not an -- that's
another reason for an objection, if it's not an exhibit.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: We're off the record for
a moment.
(Off-the-record session.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right, go on.
MR. McCORRISTON: Can I also object, the
statement that a majority of time is not spent at the
Curtis Street residence is a statement of Abigail.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Is a statement of --
MR. MCCORRISTON: Abigail.
MR. FOX: That's not so.
MR. McCORRISTON: Excuse me, not Abigail.
Statement of Lehua, paragraph 8 of her declaration.
MR. BAKER: Not so, Mr. Chair, it's a
statement of Brickwood.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, that's what I'm
trying to find.
MR. BAKER: It is Mr. McCorriston's Exhibit B.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Back on the
record so there's no question about this. Let me
address this for a moment. Exhibit 17 in Mr. Baker's
exhibits is a letter dated December 12, 2014 from the
Clerk to Mr. Galuteria, and that is a two-page letter
signed by Bernice Mau, who -- signed by someone, I
believe Glen Takahashi, on behalf of Bernice Mau, who
was the City Clerk at the time.
Then the next page following is a list of
supplemental questions, presumably addressed to Senator
Galuteria, because in the second and third line it
refers to both yourself and your wife, parentheses,
Abigail L. Galuteria, "Please --" et cetera.
Numbered paragraph 3 toward the bottom of the
page says: In your December 6, 2014 statement --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
apparently referring to Senator Galuteria -- you
indicated spending a, quote, great majority of the
time, end quote, at Palolo, and the splitting of your
and Abigail's time between Curtis Street and Palolo
following the recent separation between your daughter
and her husband.
I do believe that that is what Mr. Baker is
referring to.
MR. BAKER: Correct.
MR. McCORRISTON: Okay. With that
clarification, go ahead and answer.
THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why did you tell the Clerk that
you spend a great majority of the time at your Palolo?
Home
MR. McCORRISTON: At that time.
THE WITNESS: At that time.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: December 6.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: In December of 2014.
THE WITNESS: As I referred in an earlier
answer --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I'm sorry, what was
that?
THE WITNESS: As I referred in an earlier
answer, Chair, 2014 was an especially tumultuous year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
for my family. It was at that time that my daughter
needed as much support as possible. She has five
children; five children. Her husband was not there at
the time. We went to Palolo to ensure that we could
support them adequately.
I hope that would provide clarity to your
question, that answer.
MR. BAKER: I'm leaving that as stated.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why did you tell the Clerk that
you had resided at the Curtis Street unit, quote, for
several years prior to my reelection to the District 12
State Senate seat in 2012? You moved your mother into
her RCP unit in mid-June 2011, a year before the
primary?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Stop, please,
Mr. Baker. When you say several years, what are you
referring to? What document are you referring to?
MR. BAKER: Should be the same document. It's
one of the clerk's exhibits, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, we need to know
which one.
MR. BAKER: Do you need to know that now, or
can we provide that, so as not to waste time.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, if Mr. Galuteria
can say that he remembers it without seeing it, we'll go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
forward. Otherwise, we're going to ask you to look for
it and ask the question a little bit down the line.
MR. BAKER: The source of that statement is
the December 6th, 2014 letter from Galuteria to the
Clerk.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Is it one of your
exhibits?
MR. BAKER: It's one of the Clerk's exhibits.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Take a moment. That
would be Exhibit D, as in David.
MR. NOMURA: Exhibit D. It is the City
Clerk's exhibit.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: For the record, this is
on Hawaii State Senate stationery, December 6, 2014,
from Senator Galuteria to Ms. Bernice Mau, who was at
the time the City Clerk. And in the third line in the
first paragraph he says: I'm a resident of that address
and have -- meaning the Curtis Street address -- and
have been for several years prior to my reelection to
the District 12 Senate seat in 2012. I will also
respond in the affirmative for my wife, Abigail Lehua
Galuteria.
This is to the question as to whether they
were indeed residents at that Curtis Street address.
So it's now on the record and clear, I do trust. Yes,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
sir?
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, is it appropriate for
us to ask if we could have a copy of that letter?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: You don't have -- I mean
you got a set of these exhibits at the hearing.
MR. BAKER: We did not get a set of exhibits
at the hearing.
MR. NOMURA: All documents were e-mailed to
the parties, including Mr. Baker, consistent with the
Board's instructions.
MS. KUNIMOTO: They were all e-mailed.
MR. BAKER: We had to read it, because the
alternative would have been to run off 201 pages, since
we were not given a copy --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: A hard copy.
MR. BAKER: -- of the document.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Let the record reflect
that I am handing to Mr. Baker my copy. He can hang on
to it for now.
Okay, so the question, as I understand, the
question is still pending from Mr. Baker to
Mr. Galuteria why did you make that statement,
basically, about being at the Curtis Street address for
several years prior to the 2012 election.
MR. McCORRISTON: You know, Mr. Chairman, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
want to just state my objection to the extent that
characterized that as something that's a
misrepresentation. They moved into Curtis Street on May
'11, and the election in 2012 was in November, which is
more than a year.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes.
MR. BAKER: It's not several years.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: So Senator Galuteria,
the question to you is if you can explain why that
statement reads as thus.
THE WITNESS: Several means different things
to different people. I suppose I misspoke.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Baker, please
move on.
We're going to take a break at this time.
Five minutes.
(A recess was taken at 2:08 p.m.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: We are reconvening the
meeting of the Board of Registration for this
evidentiary hearing at approximately 2:20 p.m. after a
break.
Mr. Baker, go ahead with your questions.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I'd like to refer to
our Exhibit 1, which is a claim for home exemption.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: You need to show a copy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
of the exhibit to Mr. Galuteria if you're going to ask
him questions about it.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Mr. Galuteria, I would ask that
you read the certification at the bottom of this form.
A. Mm-hmm. Okay, I have.
Q. Please read it aloud?
A. I certify that I occupy this home in accordance
with Section 810-4 ROH, and that the foregoing is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand
that any misstatement of facts will be grounds for
disqualification. I also understand if I cease to
qualify for such an exemption I must report to the
assessor within 30 days this change in facts or status.
Failure to report a change in facts or status would
result in disqualification and penalties.
Q. Thank you.
MR. MCCORRISTON: For the record, I'd like to
direct the Commissioner's attention to the year
involving that certification, which is 2006 to 2007,
which is on the bottom of the page.
MR. BAKER: And Mr. Chair, I would like to
address our attention to Exhibit 6, which is in the same
series, which is a real property assessment notice, in
this case dated for tax year 2011 to 2012, and it is one
of nine forms of this sort mailed to Brickwood Galuteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
at 3462 Pakui Street, and it shows an exemption of
$80,000. I would like --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Hold on. All right,
Mr. Baker, you're testifying at this point. You are
referring to Exhibit 6, which relates to tax year
July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. Are you also referring
to Exhibit 7?
MR. BAKER: There are nine exhibits of this
sort for different years.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, you're testifying,
and I'm just trying to get clear on the record what nine
years or nine exhibits you're talking about. So
Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8 --
MR. BAKER: It is 2, 3, 4 -- with the
exception of 5 -- 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: But not Exhibit 1?
Exhibits 1 --
MR. BAKER: Exhibit 1 was the previous --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I understand. But it's
part of this package, it is not?
MR. BAKER: It is part of the packet, yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: So then Exhibit 2 would
relate to --
MR. McCORRISTON: Just for the record,
Mr. Chairman, Exhibit 1 is a different form than --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes, they're different
firms.
MR. MCCORRISTON: -- Exhibits 2, et seq.
There's no signature of Mr. Galuteria or anything of
that on Exhibits 2 and those that follow. It's a
different form for a different purpose. It's just an
invoice.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. For the record,
Exhibits 6 through 10 are real property assessment
notices addressed to Mr. Galuteria at the Pakui Street
address, and they're simply notices from the real
property assessment division to him.
MR. MCCORRISTON: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: They do not contain any
representations by him, signatures, et cetera. Okay, go
ahead, sir.
MR. BAKER: And I just wanted to indicate that
except for Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is not included.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: You don't need to make
argument now. We don't want argument now. Do you have
a question for Senator Galuteria? These are in the
record.
MR. BAKER: I have a request for Senator
Galuteria, that he would read this language right below
the two bolded lines --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Which exhibit are you
referring to?
MR. BAKER: On Exhibit 6, under the heading of
request to change my mailing address or exemption
status, that he read the two lines that are immediately
below the bolded section.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. You know,
this exhibit speaks for itself. If this is foundational
to some question you can ask, just go ahead, we're all
looking at the exhibit. Please go ahead and ask any
question you have relating to Exhibit 6 or the similar
exhibits through 10. We don't have to have him sit here
and read it.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Why did you not clip and send in
this form when you putatively changed your address from
3462 Pakui Street to Curtis Street?
A. Which I what? I'm sorry, which I putatively?
I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Putatively.
THE WITNESS: Putatively, okay.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Claim to have.
A. Sure. When I changed my residence. I'm on the
public record saying I simply made a mistake. I'm on
the public record, so that would be my answer to you.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, Mr. Baker's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
question -- maybe it's inartfully propounded.
MR. BAKER: Probably.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Don't you want to ask
him whether he received this notice?
MR. BAKER: Yes. And whether you returned
this --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Let's take them one at a
time.
Q. Did you receive this notice?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Exhibit 6.
A. I would assume it did, it came to Pakui Street,
and so we may have received it, maybe not. I don't
know.
Q. And did you return the form at the bottom, which
is a request to change my mailing address or exemption
status?
A. No. Again, I will repeat, it was a mistake, and
I learned from the mistake, and we took care of it. I
was made aware that one has to opt out of the system.
The system just does not drop you out.
Q. I would ask, Mr. Galuteria, how you would explain
the fact that in nine separate years you received this
notification, and that apparently in none of those nine
years did you see fit to respond to the Real Property
Assessment Division?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
MR. McCORRISTON: Asked and answered.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Go ahead and answer
because --
MR. McCORRISTON: You can answer it again.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: The prior question was
focused on Exhibit 6.
A. You want me to say I made a mistake again?
Q. Nine separate times? With the advice from a
professional tax attorney?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Is that a yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. BAKER: Thank you. All right, that's all
I have.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. City Clerk,
Mr. Nomura.
MR. NOMURA: No questions from the City.
MR. McCORRISTON: No redirect.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Galuteria, I have a
number of questions for you, sir.
EXAMINATION
BY CHAIRPERSON BURDICK:
Q. How did you acquire the Pakui Street property?
A. It was a property that my wife's family owned.
She was raised there, so we decided to keep it in the
family.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. And I believe exhibits show that you folks
acquired that property in or around 2005; is that
correct?
A. Right, yes.
Q. And at that time you established that as your
residence and your voting residence; is that correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Where had you lived, you and your wife lived
previous to that?
A. Portlock.
Q. Okay. Did you at any time have a mortgage on the
Pakui Street property?
A. Prior to that?
Q. At any time.
A. We do now.
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. As of when, roughly?
A. 2005.
Q. Do you know, as you sit here today, whether
during the time that you had the -- let me back up. You
had the mortgage starting in 2005 and it continues to
today?
A. Yes.
Q. And you make monthly mortgage payments?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Yes.
Q. Do those monthly mortgage payments include sums
that are applied to your real property tax, or do you
pay that separately?
A. Whether it's in the mortgage?
Q. Yes. The mortgage payments, you make monthly
payments that probably include homeowner's insurance --
A. Yes, yes.
Q. -- and stuff like that.
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Did it include, as far as you know, as you sit
here today, did it include money to apply to the real
property taxes for this property, or did you pay that
separately?
A. Think I paid that separately.
Q. The Clerk, City Clerk made a supplemental
responsive filing on Wednesday, the week before the
first hearing, I believe that was roughly November 25,
that includes an Exhibit Z, as in zebra, and it is --
the exhibit has two voter registration forms, one for
you and one for your wife, dated August 30, 2007. That
is the approximate time that you moved into Executive
Centre?
A. Yeah.
Q. And who was, as of that time, the time that you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
moved into Executive Centre, who was living at Pakui
Street?
A. We were living at Pakui Street. We have four
units there, we took one unit. My daughter -- are you
talking about who else was living there?
Q. Yes, yes.
A. There were four families at the time. There was
my daughter, her five children and her husband. There
was my nephew, his five children and his wife. There
was also a tenant, with his four children and his wife.
And then we were downstairs in one of the units.
Q. So did you maintain an actual secondary residence
at Pakui Street even though you had moved into Executive
Centre?
A. What's -- how do you define secondary residence?
Q. I'm not sure, because you're saying you and your
wife retained a unit at Pakui Street.
A. Oh, we owned the place, that's why.
Q. Right, I understand.
A. And we want to maintain a presence on the
property, so as to make sure that the tenants know
that -- who owns the place, if you will. It's a
presence.
Q. How often during that time did you actually stay
overnight?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Well, prior to --
MR. McCORRISTON: During the time of the
Executive Centre --
THE WITNESS: At the time of the Executive
Centre?
Q. (By Chairperson Burdick) Yes. After you
established your residence at Executive Centre, how much
time, if any, did you maintain at Pakui Street?
A. You know, I can't really --
Q. More or less. I mean very roughly.
A. Well, our grandchildren are there, and so we'd be
there as often as we possibly could. So you know, if
couple of days a week, three days a week, however that
works. It's our family.
Q. All right. Now, on or about June 15, 2011, you
and your mother and your wife -- this is your
testimony -- moved into the Royal Capitol Plaza.
A. Yes.
Q. Curtis Street address.
A. Right.
Q. Where had your mother been living previous to
that?
A. We owned a house in Kaneohe for the past
40-some-odd years, and this is where she was. And over
time, with her health, with the development of her
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
ailments that are not readily recognizable, the doctors
recommended that she come into town and I get closer.
So it was quite appropriate that because we had
come out of a reapportionment and we had to relocate,
that that would be the time to move mom in. Now, it
wasn't easy. Again, I'll go back to the fact that I
want to honor her independence, she's been independent
since my dad left back in the sixties, okay.
Q. When were you first elected to the State Senate?
A. 2008, the end of 2008. We began the first
session in 2009. November 2008.
Q. Okay. And the primary preceded.
A. And the primary, yeah, which was --
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. And is it your testimony that, referring to
Executive Centre, you and Lehua actually physically
resided there?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you move to Curtis Street at the time
that you did in June of 2011?
A. We had determined the reapportionment by that
time, and so it was if -- you know, if I wanted to
serve, I needed to follow the lines.
Q. Why is your wife, Abigail Lehua Galuteria, not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
present at these proceedings?
A. She's not well. I would say that at this
particular point she suffers from a high degree of
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and so for her to
get from point A to point B more than 30 yards is rather
challenging.
Q. In a filing done on behalf of you and Abigail,
March 24, 2015 -- and I can show it to you -- on page 5
there's a statement by your counsel that states, Lehua
is planning on registering to vote in the district --
omitted word where -- the Galuteria's Pakui Street
property is situated because of family circumstances.
This is March of this year.
A. Yes.
Q. Was that correct at that time?
A. At that time.
Q. And has something changed since then to cause her
no longer to be planning to return to Pakui Street?
A. Everything was centered around the family, and it
was our assumption at that time that our daughter would
need the support because she and her husband had split
up, so she was a single parent at the time, and that's
why we decided, okay, we're going to move her up there
so that she can spend more time.
Q. And what is the situation now, particularly in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
light of this most recent pair of affidavits that you
and Lehua just submitted?
A. My daughter has decided to go back with her
husband, and they no longer reside in Palolo.
Q. Who is residing in Palolo now?
A. We're currently renting the unit out so we can
get proper revenues.
Q. Okay. Well, you just described that there are
three or four different units there?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Now, is your nephew still there?
A. No, he's since built, he's got his DHHL land. We
rent that out now to some college kids.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Do you still keep a
presence to the Palolo address to the some degree?
THE WITNESS: We hold a unit open. We hold a
unit open until we're going to make this move, then
we'll be able to get some -- then we'd to be able to
rent -- people to rent a fourth unit, that's our
intention.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So once you move,
you're not necessarily going to feel a need to keep a
presence in Palolo at all?
THE WITNESS: Just as a landlord. Landlord
presence.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: What is the timeframe
that you --
THE WITNESS: January 1.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Any other questions?
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So I think a lot of
the questions of, you know, the configuration of the
space just for basic, you know, day-to-day functions, do
the three of you eat and cook and everything at Curtis
Street very often, or --
THE WITNESS: Enough; enough. I don't know
whether you could look at that as any kind of indication
of residency. I mean --
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: No, I'm just trying to
get a gist of how -- you know, whether that should be in
consideration at all.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think it should
be, because like anybody living in that type of
environment, you do what you got to do, and you cook
when you got to cook, and you sleep when you got to
sleep. I don't know --
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So your mother's
inside the unit most of the day?
THE WITNESS: Oh, well, my mom is, you know,
to her great credit, she's fighting aging really hard,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
so she likes to move. But she suffers from neuropathy,
too, so her ability to walk as far as she'd like to walk
is limited, and so I think the best we can do for her is
she spend time down at the church. She spends a lot of
time down at the church, every day.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: How old is your mother
again?
THE WITNESS: Eighty-five.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So about the opting
out of the property tax exemption, how many times had
you -- had you just refiled it thinking that you were
only filing it for one year?
THE WITNESS: No, you don't refile, see.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah, it --
THE WITNESS: It just continues.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: -- continues.
THE WITNESS: You have to opt out. And so
that was a -- to me that was a mistake I made. I got
back with the City, we did the plan, I cleared it up.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So you intended to
only file for one year, but it just kept you in the
system and --
THE WITNESS: Once you get the exemption, it
continues on, yeah. So --
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: But you didn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
understand that until --
THE WITNESS: I guess I didn't. I guess it
was my mistake.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Any more?
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Nothing substantial.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. McCorriston,
redirect?
MR. McCORRISTON: No, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, further
cross-examination?
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Mr. Galuteria, did you maintain your presence at
Pakui Street throughout this entire period?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Which entire period?
MR. BAKER: Between your purchase of the house
and the present.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: And what was the second
date?
MR. BAKER: The present time.
A. Maintain a presence? Well, I would suppose so.
We lived there until we didn't, and when we didn't we
were up there supporting our children.
MR. BAKER: That's all.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Is that it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Mr. Nomura, any other --
MR. NOMURA: No questions from the City.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Thank you,
Mr. Galuteria, that's it.
(Witness excused.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. McCorriston, you
have additional witnesses?
MR. McCORRISTON: That's it. We rest.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: You rest.
Mr. Nomura, any?
MR. NOMURA: The City Clerk.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
Whereupon,
GLEN TAKAHASHI,
called as a witness on behalf of the City Clerk
Appellee, being first duly sworn by the Chairperson, was
examined and testified as follows:
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Would you state your
name, please.
THE WITNESS: Glen Takahashi, City Clerk.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NOMURA:
Q. Mr. Takahashi, please explain to us your job
title.
A. I am the City Clerk for the City and County of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Honolulu.
Q. And when were you appointed?
A. I was appointed as acting clerk starting
January 1 of this year, upon the retirement of the
previous clerk. I was confirmed June 3rd.
Q. Of this year?
A. Of this year, yes.
Q. And prior to you being appointed and confirmed as
the City Clerk, what were you?
A. I was the elections administrator for the office
of the City Clerk.
Q. And how long have you been with the City Clerk's
office?
A. I have been there since -- 16 years, since 1999.
Q. And generally describe for us your job duties as
the City Clerk.
A. As the City Clerk I'm the recording officer for
the City Council. I serve as the department head. I
have records management responsibilities for City
documents, authentication responsibilities. I also
serve as the chief election officer for county
elections. I have responsibilities in the areas of
voter registration and absentee voting under state law
as well.
Q. And do your responsibilities also include
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
investigations of voter registration challenges?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And you're familiar with such challenges?
A. Yes.
Q. And during your tenure at the City Clerk's office
have you been involved with investigations of voter
registration challenges?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Approximately how many?
A. Approximately ten, perhaps a few more. But
that's -- ten that I can remember, anyway, in the last
16 years.
Q. And generally describe for us what do you do in
conducting your investigation of these voter
registration challenges.
A. Well, voter registration challenges are governed
by state law. When we receive a challenge, we inform
the challenged voter, give him the opportunity to
respond. We conduct our own so-called investigation,
although it's more of a fact finding. We don't have
investigative powers, technically, we don't carry a
badge, we're not law enforcement or anything like that.
But we do fact finding on our own, independently,
as well as giving the challenged voter opportunity to
submit whatever evidence, substantiating evidence that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
they may have, and statements. At that point, once
we've included that, we make a ruling on the voter
registration challenge and we go from there.
Q. And do you have subpoena power?
A. We do not.
Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Baker's challenge to
the Galuterias' voter registration residency?
A. Yes, I'm familiar.
Q. And how did you become familiar with that?
A. The challenge first came in, I believe it was
November 3rd that we received it, and at the time --
well, I was serving as the elections administrator at
the time, starting, I believe it was November 1st or
2nd. I actually became the Deputy City Clerk as of
early November. I continued to do the fact finding and
the work on this particular voter registration challenge
even as the deputy. Knowing that the timeline for my
predecessor's retirement was upcoming at the end of the
year, so I just continued on, knowing that at some point
I'd -- it was very likely that I'd have to rule on this
matter as well, so ...
Q. And can you describe for us what did you do with
respect to this investigation of the Baker challenge to
the Galuterias' residency.
A. Well, the first thing we do is we notified
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Mr. Galuteria and Mrs. Galuteria that they were, in
fact, challenged, give them the opportunity to submit
whatever substantiating evidence they want.
While that's going on, we do our own research.
We look into various government databases that we have
access to, driver licensing, motor vehicle records, real
property, whatever sources might be available. Campaign
spending paperwork, ethics, financial disclosure paper,
whatever might be out there that would give us an
indication of the residence of the person being
challenged. Sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't.
Case in point, if -- in this case we're dealing
with Mr. Galuteria, who's a senator. We were well aware
of that. We were well aware that he runs a campaign,
but sometime when you look into these things they have a
campaign address, so it's not -- checking campaign
spending records may not be helpful, but we go through
the process of looking at whatever sources might be
available regardless.
Q. And you recalled doing precisely that with
respect to the Baker challenge, correct?
A. Correct, yes.
MR. NOMURA: At this time, and I think the
Chair has already admitted the City Clerk's exhibits,
and I just wanted to confirm that the record that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
City Clerk has submitted as it's exhibits have been
admitted into evidence.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. Everyone's was.
Q. (By Mr. Nomura) And based on the records that
you reviewed, submitted by both Mr. Baker as well as
Mr. Galuteria and his wife, was it your understanding
that they were previously registered to vote at a Palolo
Street address?
A. Yeah. Part of our fact finding is looking at
their voter registration history, and that did reveal
what was confirmed earlier today in this hearing, that
the Galuterias were once registered at Pakui Street,
then at Bishop Street, and then at Curtis Street. And
there's some addresses before that, but those are the
three addresses that we're, I guess, we're talking
about.
Q. And it's your recollection that at least with
respect to the Galuterias' voter registration residency,
they were once registered at the Pakui Street address,
correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. Is it your understanding that they later changed
their voter registration residency to a Bishop Street
address?
A. Yes, yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. Do you recall the time period?
A. I think it was 2007, or thereabouts, they had
reregistered to an address at the Bishop Street address.
Q. And is there any significance, I mean, in your
mind, the fact that voter registration residency changed
from Palolo to Bishop Street?
A. Well, typically when you reregister, that means
you're relinquishing your residence at one place and
establishing it at another, and so from what I could
gather, it happened twice since Pakui Street, if you
will.
Q. Now, do you have any recollection one way or the
other whether anyone challenged the Galuterias'
residence for voter registration purposes at their
Bishop Street address?
A. No, we didn't have any challenges.
Q. So there were none?
A. We did not.
Q. And this was -- this being the Baker challenge --
to the Curtis Street address is the only challenge to
the Galuterias' residency?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, is it your understanding, as part of your
investigation of the Baker challenge, that the
Galuterias had claimed a homeowner real property tax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
exemption for the Palolo Street address?
A. Yes, we did establish that.
Q. And what significance did that have in your
investigation?
A. Under Hawaii Administrative Rules governing
residency, when you claim a homeowners property tax
exemption or renter's tax credit at a particular
address, it creates a rebuttable presumption of
residency at that particular location, and so once that
was determined, it's incumbent upon the person who's
claiming that as -- that homeowners exemption, in this
case, to rebut that presumption of residency.
Q. And did you ask the Galuterias to provide
additional facts or additional documents to rebut that
presumption?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you receive?
A. Mr. Galuteria, on behalf of him and himself,
because we asked if, I believe, if we're going to treat
this separately or together, and they'll be treated
together, they submitted renter's agreements, bank
statements, what appears to be paychecks, royalty -- I
guess royalty checks from some of Mr. Galuteria's work,
tax payment vouchers, did I say rental agreements,
various documents and sworn statements regarding the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
establishment of their Curtis Street address.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Excuse me,
Mr. Takahashi, you said on behalf of him and himself.
You meant -- you misspoke, I believe.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. Again --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Is that his wife?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Isn't that what you're
saying?
THE WITNESS: From what we know, okay, the
challenge -- both he and his wife were challenged, and
they can be treated separately or together, and we asked
if we're going to treat this separately, but
Mr. Galuteria responded that, no, he and his wife are --
will be treated together. So the assumption that all of
the, whatever facts and things that are established are
the same for the two, unless the documents show
otherwise.
Q. (By Mr. Nomura) And actually, your understanding
was that during the course of the investigation, both
Mr. and Mrs. Galuteria were represented by counsel,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The McCorriston firm, correct?
A. Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. And in your mind, as part of the fact finding and
information gathering, did the Galuterias rebut that
presumption with respect to the homeowners real property
tax exemption?
A. Yeah, in my mind, looking at the totality of
documents and statements that were made, they had
rebutted the presumption. I was satisfied in that
sense.
Q. And after you reviewed these records you came to
a conclusion?
A. That Curtis Street is their voter registration
address as residence.
Q. And you heard the testimony that Mr. Baker had
presented in these proceedings, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Has that presentation of the testimony of three
residents of the Royal Capitol Plaza, RCP, changed your
opinion one way or the other in terms of the voter
registration residency for the Galuterias?
A. No. I stand by our determination.
MR. NOMURA: I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
//
//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. In the December 12, 2014 letter signed by you,
you said, quote, "As mentioned before, our office is
guided by the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in Dupree
versus Hiraga. A copy of this ruling is provided for
you with this transmittal," end quote. This is
Exhibit 17, which is the Clerk's Exhibit E.
Do you still stand by that affirmation of the
primacy of Dupree in the case before this Board?
A. Yes.
MR. NOMURA: Well, let me pose an objection.
To the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion, I
object. But if Mr. Takahashi can respond to that
question, he can go ahead and respond.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
A. Yes. Dupree/Hiraga is another voter registration
challenge that occurred on the County of Maui that went
all the way up to the State Supreme Court, and to the
extent that it provides us guidance, yes, we go by what
the Dupree decision guides us.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) In that December 12, 2014 letter,
your, quote, "supplemental questions," end quote,
included asking Brickwood Galuteria to provide utility
bills, insurance policies, such as car, renter's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
insurance, et cetera, tax returns, cellular phone bills,
magazine subscriptions. Did Brickwood Galuteria supply
any of these?
A. To those specific that you mentioned, he provided
a tax payment voucher in the tax area, but for the rest,
I don't believe so, that was not a submission.
Q. So does this mean that Brickwood Galuteria
supplied no federal, state or local tax returns from
2011 to election day 2014, even though law requires the
retention of tax records?
A. I don't know what the law requires, and certainly
the list of documents that can be provided is including
but not limited to --
Q. I'm sorry, that's a yes or no question.
MR. NOMURA: Well, let him answer. You asked
him a question, he's responding to your question. Let
Mr. Takahashi answer your question.
A. To the extent the -- what he provided speaks for
itself, and so those are all provided to both the Board
and yourself. What's there is there. That was what was
provided.
Q. So I'm going to take that as a "no."
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Misstates the
testimony.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Sustained on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
objection, no. You're mischaracterizing his testimony,
and your question was very argumentative in the first
place. Next question.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Your letter's supplemental
question number 3 includes the sentence that Brickwood
indicated he spends, quote, "a great majority of the
time," end quote, at his Palolo residence.
Didn't you view this as strong evidence that
Brickwood's only one residence, which as you know,
Hawaii Revised Statutes requires a person to have but
one residence, is his Palolo home?
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Assumes facts not in
evidence. Misstates prior testimony.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Go ahead and answer.
A. I just wanted him to clarify that statement.
Part of it is determining physical presence, and I just
wanted a clarification.
Q. Your February 2nd, 2015 letter to me -- that is
our Exhibit 18, McCorriston's Exhibit D -- noted that
the City's Real Property Assessment Division had a
Palolo address for Brickwood Galuteria, with no
notification of a move; that Abigail Galuteria's
driver's license had the Palolo address; that Brickwood
Galuteria's driver's license address was other than the
Curtis Street unit; and that Abigail Galuteria had two
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
vehicles registered at their Palolo home.
Aren't these findings listed by you strong
suggestion that the Galuterias' one residence is, in
fact, their Palolo home?
MR. NOMURA: Objection. If Mr. Baker is going
to talk about or ask questions with respect to a
document, I would ask that Mr. Baker present the
document to the witness prior to his response.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Exhibit 18, you mean?
MR. NOMURA: Correct. That document is not
before Mr. Takahashi.
MR. McCORRISTON: Which includes the driver's
license made on Queen Street, not Palolo.
MR. FOX: Do you really want to do this every
time?
MR. NOMURA: Well, if he's going to refer to a
document, I would like the document be in front of
Mr. Takahashi.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That's fine, and that is
indeed fair.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Takahashi has
just been handed a copy of, I do believe, Exhibit 18.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker's Exhibit 18,
the letter dated February 2, 2015 from Mr. Takahashi, as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
City Clerk or acting City Clerk, to Mr. Baker.
MR. NOMURA: And let me state for the record
that the document speaks for itself.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. I'll ask the
court reporter to repeat back Mr. Baker's question.
(The record was read by the court reporter.)
MR. McCORRISTON: I object to the form of the
question as reference to HRS prohibiting people to own
more than one home, more than one residence, and that's
not in the letter.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Mr. Baker,
I'm going to ask you to restate the question and to
break it up. It's terribly compound, and I'd like you
to break it up. We're all looking at your Exhibit 18,
which is the letter of February 2, 2015, which goes on
for nine numbered pages.
So if you could please revise your question
to focus on particular items, and ask Mr. Takahashi to
take a look at them, refamiliarize himself with those
various things. Please refer, if you can, to page
number and numbered paragraph number.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, before we get to
that, could I just point out that Mr. McCorriston's
latest reference was to our previous question, not to
the question currently under discussion. So
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Mr. McCorriston's comment was irrelevant.
MR. McCORRISTON: Well, Mr. McCorriston notes
that the questions followed each other without any
answer in between. So I'm not sure which question is
pending, and I agree with the Chairman that both
questions were complex and compound and should be broken
down and answered one at a time. So I am confused as to
what the question is because two were asked in a row.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Should we back up to the
December question then, Mr. Baker? Would you like to go
back to that? That was the question relating to
Mr. Galuteria's comment, the supplemental question, the
unnumbered page, part of the third sheet in Exhibit 17.
Unnumbered page, but numbered paragraph 3: In your
December 6, 2014 statement you indicated spending a,
quote, "great majority of the time," end quote, at
Palolo.
Do you feel that you -- Mr. Baker, do you
feel that you've gotten an answer to that question?
MR. BAKER: Well, Mr. Chair, I was asking if
the Clerk viewed that sentence as providing a strong
indication that Brickwood Galuteria's only one
residence, as per HRS 11-13, is his Palolo home. That's
the end of that question.
MR. McCORRISTON: That was my objection, that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
the HRS does not prohibit you from owning more than one
residence.
MR. NOMURA: And let me add, too, I don't know
what sentence he's referring to at this point.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: What do you mean?
MR. NOMURA: What document are you referring
to, Mr. Baker?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: He's referring to
Exhibit 18, third sheet of paper, which is the
unnumbered page that's headed "Supplemental Questions,"
and numbered paragraph 3 therein.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I would just dispute
Mr. McCorriston's claim that HRS 11-13 does not require
a person to have but one residence. This is repeated
repeatedly in the literature about residence and voting.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. I'm just
going to read into the record one sentence, the
introductory sentence to 11-13 of Hawaii Revised
Statutes. For the purpose of this title, which relates
to elections, there can be only one residence for an
individual, but in determining residency a person may
treat one's self separate from the person's spouse. And
then the following rules determine residency for
election purposes only, and then there's a list of seven
paragraphs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
MR. McCORRISTON: Which is for election
purposes, and there's another HRS for tax purposes, and
there's ordinances for tax purposes. So how he said the
question was absolutely wrong and a misstatement of
that.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
MR. MCCORRISTON: And this Chair, this Board
has already ruled that we're here for voter registration
purposes, not for sitting in the Senate, which is
another matter. You've already ruled that.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Of course.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, that's exactly what we
were saying, this is a matter of election purposes.
That's the section you read.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That's fine, and it's
going to be understood that your question, Mr. Baker,
relates to 11-13 for election purposes, and
Mr. Takahashi's response will be focused on that only.
We'll interpret it that way. So go ahead, please,
restate, and please refrain from editorializing.
Mr. Baker, restate your question one more time.
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, this is the question --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right, this is the
question focusing --
MR. BAKER: -- about supplemental question 3?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. On paragraph 3,
yes. Exhibit 17, letter from Mr. -- well, officially
from Bernice Mau, but it appears to have been signed by
Mr. Takahashi for Ms. Mau -- December 12, 2014,
Exhibit 17, third page unnumbered, supplemental
questions, numbered paragraph 3: In your December 6,
2014 statement you indicated spending a, quote, "great
majority of the time," end quote, at Palolo.
MR. BAKER: And my question to the Clerk --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Takahashi, do you
have that in front of you?
THE WITNESS: I'm familiar with what this is.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: But do you have it in
front of you?
THE WITNESS: December 12, right?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. Okay.
MR. McCORRISTON: Can I ask that the responses
from Mr. Galuteria to that question be included and
referenced by the Clerk before he answers this?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: You can go ahead and
cross on that. Go ahead. Okay, so --
MR. BAKER: I may continue?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. So your question
again, one more time without the editorializing, you can
say 11-13 if you want.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Did you view the sentence by
Brickwood Galuteria that you spends, quote, "a great
majority of the time," end quote, at his Palolo
residence as strong evidence that his, quote, only one
residence is his Palolo home, end question.
A. No.
Q. Okay. Next question: Your February 2nd, 2015
letter to me -- which is our Exhibit 18, McCorriston's
Exhibit D -- noted that the City's Real Property
Assessment Division had a Palolo address for Brickwood
with no notification of a move. Is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right, excuse me.
This is a nine-page letter. Could you please refer to
the page that you are alluding to that has that
statement?
MR. BAKER: It's going to take a bit of time.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Is it this very second
paragraph on the first page?
MR. NOMURA: I believe Mr. Baker is referring
to page 4, paragraph 11.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Numbered paragraph 11?
MR. NOMURA: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That appears to be
correct.
Mr. Baker, is that indeed the paragraph
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
you're referring to, on page 4 of the February 2nd,
2015 letter, numbered paragraph 11?
MR. BAKER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Nomura.
Now, the question again, Mr. Baker, is?
Mr. Takahashi, you have that in front of you?
THE WITNESS: I'm just waiting for a question
that I can answer.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: But you have that --
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Can you confirm that as stated in
the February 2nd, 2015 letter to me, that the City's
Real Property Assessment Division had a Palolo address
for Brickwood Galuteria with no notification of a move?
A. That was part of our research and investigation,
so it speaks for itself.
Q. Thank you. Moving right on, can you confirm that
the February 2nd, letter stated that Abigail Galuteria's
driver's license showed the Palolo address?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker --
MR. McCORRISTON: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: -- it's right there and
you can safe it for your argument. You can just refer
to it. There's no need for him to reconfirm what's
already in the documents. This is -- your exhibit is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
admitted.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, you asked me to
break down the question. That's all I was doing. Are
you now telling me that I'm not allowed to break down
the question?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. You don't
have -- all right, let me be clear on this. When you're
asking for an interpretation or an analysis of
something, that's fine. But what you're merely asking
the witness, to confirm that something is in the letter
that he wrote, that's superfluous, we don't need that.
But go ahead and ask whatever it is -- if you
have some reason for -- you know, pick a paragraph, if
you're trying to get Mr. Takahashi to explain his
intent behind a statement, then fine. But if you're
simply asking him to agree that that statement is
sitting there in the letter, that's a waste of our
time.
MR. BAKER: Well, I'm not sure, Mr. Chair,
what at this point you are saying that I should be
asking.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Oh, I'm not -- I asked
you to break down your question, and because it was, you
know, a freight train with a whole bunch of box cars, I
didn't notice that some of those were simply asking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Mr. Takahashi to restate what's already in the letter.
You don't have to do that.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Just to say it
quickly, he just means that your questions need to
contribute something additional that's not already in
the paperwork.
MR. BAKER: Okay, I give up. Moving right
along.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Aren't the various findings
listed by you in the February 2nd letter strong evidence
that the Galuterias' one residence is their Palolo home?
A. That's not what I concluded.
MR. BAKER: Done. I'm going to have to move
on, because I'm so confused at this point by the various
arguments being put forth by the other parties that I
don't even know quite how to phrase that question in a
way that would be acceptable to the Chair.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Next question: In your research
from, quote, government, slash, public sources -- that
is Exhibit 18, pages 3 to 4; Mr. McCorriston's Exhibit
D -- you list 13, quote, sources, end quote. But the
first eight of these sources are self-declared filings
by the Galuterias themselves used by them to buttress
their election-related claim of living in the Curtis
Street unit. They're all on voting or elective office
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
related forms, none provide the needed independent
verification of living in the Curtis Street unit, which
is the kinds of information you asked Brickwood to
provide. I ask you, sir, isn't that so?
MR. NOMURA: Objection.
MR. McCORRISTON: Object to the form of the
question. Argumentative; pure argument.
MR. NOMURA: Same objection.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: It is argumentative, but
I'll let the question in.
Mr. Takahashi, did you follow the question?
He's basically saying the first eight are sort of
self-serving statements by Mr. Galuteria; is that not
correct?
THE WITNESS: I don't judge self-serving or
not. They were there, I pulled them up. Some of them
were submitted months and months and months prior. If
you look at candidate filing, financial disclosures, you
know, well before this challenge came up, so I don't
think we knew -- these are all election related, there's
no disputing that. But, I mean, whether they're
self-serving or not, I don't go to that place. So --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Next. Should someone who is
attempting to establish a, quote, significant physical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
presence at an unit, have changed the address on their
driver's license as the law requires if that person had,
in fact, changed his or her address?
MR. McCORRISTON: Calls for conclusion, calls
for a legal opinion, calls for speculation.
MR. NOMURA: Same objection.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: And argumentative, yes.
MR. McCORRISTON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, you're going
to have to unpack that. Before you do, I will note for
the record that you pulled that phrase, significant
physical presence, you added -- I'm going to refer back
to your statement of issues, dated November 23rd, and
you did note -- just a second.
Okay. Mr. Baker, your statement of issues,
the bottom of page 2, under Section D, as in David, you
quote from Arakaki, and you say, domiciles provide
evidence of two facts, physical presence and, et
cetera. But you quoted the term physical presence.
Then when you get to page 3, at the bottom of
page 3, the very -- second to the last line, you say
the Galuterias never established their significant,
italicized, physical presence, quote-unquote. You
inserted the term "significant" and italicized it, but
you do not cite where you came up with that phrase as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
138
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
test, and you just used it in the question that you
just asked. So I'm asking you to explain where you got
this new phrase, significant physical presence, from.
MR. BAKER: That phrase is in the Dupree
judgment, and the word "significant" is italicized in
that judgment.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. I'll look for it.
Thank you. Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Is it true that in the
nonelection-related sources on your government public
sources list, these sources show addresses for the
Palolo home, Mahinui Road and for Bishop Street, and
none for the Curtis Street unit?
A. I'm sorry, I don't --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: If you're simply asking
him to comment on the paperwork that's already in front
of us, you can save that for your argument. And the
paperwork is there, it's been admitted into evidence, so
you don't have to, you know, pound that any further.
It's already there.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I was trying, as had
been suggested, to unpack these various points, and I
was asking for the Clerk's view on those points. I
think that's a fair question, but you can deny it if you
wish.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: No, that's fine, but
you're not asking him for his view, you're simply asking
him to confirm what's already there. That is not a
view. If you're asking him to express how he came to an
opinion on the basis of his analysis of items that are
already listed, that's fine. You've already asked that
question, it's already been answered.
MR. BAKER: Well, if you will do me the great
favor of telling me how I can ask this question in a way
that you would find acceptable, I am delighted to follow
your wording.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I'd be delighted to know
what your question is.
My colleague on the Board needs to take a
quick break, so we're going to take five minutes now,
and we'll see what we can do. Can give you some time
to confer with Mr. Fox, or whomever.
MR. NOMURA: And actually, before we go on a
break, I'd like to point out, at least for the record,
that in the Dupree case the, quote, significant physical
present language that Mr. Baker has referred to, with
the word "significant" being italicized, is not from the
Dupree decision, it's actually from the New Mexico
Court's decided that's cited in Dupree, so that is not
Hawaii law. So I just needed that stated for the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
record.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Is that Arizona or New
Mexico?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: New Mexico.
MR. NOMURA: I believe it refers to the New
Mexico Supreme Court Case in Klumker, K-L-U-M-K-E-R.
MR. BAKER: But you are quoting from Dupree
there, are you not?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Okay, we can
debate that. We're going to take 10 minutes total.
We'll reconvene no later than 3:40.
(A recess was taken at 3:29 p.m.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: We are reconvening at
approximately 3:37 p.m.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Burdick, I confess that I am
seriously confused. We have been asking questions that
relate to a nine-page letter from the City Clerk, which
has numerous subsections to it, and I guess my
impression from what you have said so far is that we
must go through every specific statement in that letter
and question the Clerk as to whether he agrees with that
view or whatever.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: No, that's not correct.
What I'm saying is, if you want to ask questions about
different items, first, you don't have to ask him to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
reconfirm that the letter says item 1, item 2, et
cetera. Those are there and they are stated.
If you want to ask him a question as to what
value he placed on one thing or another, then you can
do that. But I think you can ask him in a much more
general way, and I think you already asked, and he's
already answered that he considered all of these
factors, and on the basis of those factors he concluded
that claim of the Galuterias was indeed valid.
Now, if you want to pick at one particular
item or another, you know, we can try it for a bit and
see how it goes. But, you know, I don't want you to
just sit there and ask him to read paragraphs. I mean,
Mr. Baker, he has basically testified that all of these
itemized paragraphs he analyzed, and he concluded that
the sum of all of that evidence was such that he was
concluding, despite some evidence that might be
considered to be the contrary, like driver registration
addresses or vehicle registration addresses, he was
nonetheless concluding that the Galuterias' claim of
residence at Curtis Street for the purposes of
Section 11-13 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes was valid.
That's what he has testified to. Now, if you want to
pick apart something, have at it.
MR. BAKER: Okay, we'll try.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Going back to your February 2nd,
letter, did you notice that the Screen Actors Guild pay
statements mentioned as number 2 on your list of, quote,
additional information supplied by the Galuterias --
which is our Exhibit 18, page 5, and McCorriston's
Exhibit D -- were mailed in separate envelopes in
December 2014? That is as shown in Clerk's Exhibit I.
Did you notice that?
A. Did I notice they were mailed in separate
envelopes?
Q. Yes.
A. I can't say I noticed it, but what's the
significance of it?
Q. That means -- the significance of it is that
eight of the nine items listed on page 5 were mailed
after the Galuterias' voting residence was questioned,
was challenged, and given that, I am wondering how you
can consider the addresses generated after my challenge
have any validity in establishing the Galuterias'
significant physical presence at the Curtis Street unit
before November 4, 2014?
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Misstates testimony;
argumentative.
MR. McCORRISTON: Join.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Go ahead and answer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Well, when I look at this now, Screen Actors
Guild - AFTRA, payment mail date 7/29/2014, that looks
well before this challenge came about, so I'm not
certain. I mean I didn't get an envelope, so to speak,
you know. But this Entertainment Partners, Bank of
Hawaii check, 6/17/2014, these were all -- I mean when
it was mailed, that's fine, but there's check dates
here, and I don't know what --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) May I ask that you look at the
postmark --
A. Sure, I see it.
Q. -- on those various envelopes.
A. Sure.
Q. And give us the dates of those postmarks.
MR. McCORRISTON: Documents speak for
themselves.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, if you're
citing -- I don't see any envelopes in here, in the
exhibit.
MR. BAKER: May we show this to the Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yeah, sure.
MR. BAKER: This is the Clerk's Exhibit I.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. There are a
number of envelopes. Mr. Baker, are you contending that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
these relatively recent mailings, you know, postmark
dates in December of 2014, somehow raise a discrepancy
because what was contained in the envelope was stuff
that was four months previous, is that what you're
saying?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. McCORRISTON: Object. Foundation.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. I mean I'm not
seeing it. I'm seeing envelopes, but I'm not seeing a
link between what the envelope date is and the content
of the envelope. There's no way for me to see, for
example, you know, Mr. Baker handed to me to look at a
Screen Actors Guild - AFTRA mailing with a Pitney Bowes
meter date of December 5, 2014, and there's a
handwritten note, presumably by Mr. Galuteria, of
12/12/14 received, but there's no indication here what
the content is. Or am I missing something?
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, the envelopes were
included with the submission of the paystubs.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the paystubs
were mailed in those envelopes, and if you don't want to
believe that or want to reject that, okay.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: No, I'm not coming at
any conclusions, nor is my colleague. We're just trying
to figure this out.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
All right. Now, I'm seeing, for example, so
look at this particular item, and this is
Mr. McCorriston's filing of April 14, filed -- this is
part of the motion to dismiss, and various exhibits are
attached, and one of the particular exhibits -- there's
a whole pile of mailings to Mr. Galuteria from the
State at the Curtis Street address.
All right, Mr. Fox is now showing me a
different -- all right, this is from the Clerk's filing
of November 23rd, Exhibit I, and there are multiple,
multiple pages for Exhibit I, and the idea is that
there's an envelope -- I've just been shown, it's a
different envelope, but from Screen Actors Guild, with
a Pitney Bowes meter date of December 18, 2014
addressed to Mr. Galuteria with a handwritten notation
of a received -- of it being received on 12/22,
December 22, 2014. The next page is a standard,
apparently a standard statement, if you moved, call a
particular phone number. Then the next -- well, this
doesn't help, Mr. Fox, because the next page is a First
Hawaiian Bank statement.
MR. FOX: Well, that's the end of those SAG
submissions.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, you got to show me
something that there's a link.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
MR. FOX: You almost follow the --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Well, unfortunately,
that's not very helpful. You have to show that -- the
gist of what, Mr. Baker, as I understand, the gist of
what you're trying to show is that basically Screen
Actors Guild statements to Mr. Galuteria, dated in the
middle of 2014, were actually mailed to him in December
of 2014, rather stale dating that as it were, and that
this should give rise to some suspicion on the part of
Mr. Takahashi that this is all manufactured evidence to
support a claim that you deem to be illegitimate. Is
that the gist of what you're driving at?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: But what I've got
problems with this, particularly because there's no
showing, first of all, that Mr. Takahashi saw these
envelopes, or that there was actually a situation where
stale-dated statements were contained in very recent
envelopes, what at that time were very recent envelopes.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, these were all part of
the Clerk's submission, which is the only reason that we
actually saw them. So I take that as prima facie
indication that the Clerk saw -- received them, saw
them, and was aware of what they said.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Takahashi, did you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
see these envelopes?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I saw the copies, and I saw
the statements, and I've looked at dates. I'm aware
that certain rental agreements, for example, were done
after the challenge was made, and so, yes, I look at
dates. But there were many documents that, like from --
looked like what appeared to be like royalty checks and
things that were -- and statements that were well before
this challenge was lodged.
And so, you know, I don't look at any one
item as, oh, that's the silver bullet that will torpedo
the whole thing. I have to look at the whole record in
totality.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: So you would agree
that some of the documents on this list of evidence were
not convincing, but others were --
THE WITNESS: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: -- as convincing
enough that you -- your decision was --
THE WITNESS: Thank you for -- 'cause I've
been like dying to talk. So, look, you know, I'm
presented with, well, you have this piece, this piece,
this piece, four pieces out of 20, or whatever the
number is, and I'm saying, well, doesn't that draw you
to this conclusion? But I have to take a look at the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
whole body of documents and things and formulate the
conclusion.
For example, when we look at driver licensing
records, okay, I would venture to guess that if we
polled the room right now there are probably two or
three of us here that are sitting on driver licenses
right now that have outdated addresses, myself
included. And so, you know --
MR. BAKER: I object, Mr. Chair.
THE WITNESS: No, but I have to look at these
things --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Let him respond.
THE WITNESS: -- and go, well -- I recently
moved, for example, and I've been trying to change my
driver license address. I sent a letter to driver
licensing per instructions within the 30 days and
whatnot. I have access to their computer system. It
says send a letter, put in your Social Security number,
all this data, and we'll change your address on the
computer. Well, guess what, it's been three weeks now,
and driver license hasn't changed my address in the
computer.
And so I got to kind of take certain things
with a grain of salt and go, well, it's one thing, but,
you know, what else is there in the record. Motor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
vehicle registrations for your car, for example, if you
go on the City website and you look how do I change my
mailing address for where my motor vehicle
registration, I guess, what is it, fee payment should
go to. You can't find anything on the City website on
how to go about changing that. So I got to look at
these things and go, well, you know, how much weight
can I put on this versus that. Okay, so anyway,
that's -- I'll stop now.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Let me ask couple
follow-ups and I'll give it back to Mr. Baker.
Did you actually have the physical envelopes
with statements inside them, or did you just get
xeroxed copies?
THE WITNESS: No, I got xeroxed copies.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: And who gave you those
xeroxed copies?
THE WITNESS: This is a submission by
Mr. Galuteria and his attorneys.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Baker, go
ahead.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I would just add that
the sum total of the various --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Excuse me, sir, it
sounds like you're about to make an argument, which you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
can save and you can do the argument, that's fine. But
do you have any further questions for Mr. Takahashi?
MR. BAKER: Well, let me do it as a question.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Mr. Takahashi, would you agree
that eight of the nine items listed on page 5 of that
letter were mailed after I challenged the Galuterias'
voting residency, eight of nine?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: If you can testify on
the basis of your own information --
THE WITNESS: Eight of nine items were mailed
after -- I'm sorry, I didn't count them up, if you will,
but --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Now,
Mr. Baker, for clarification, when you refer to the nine
items, you are referring to the letter of February 2nd,
2015? And within that, you're referring to the items
that start on page 3 with numbered paragraph 1, and
continue to the top of page 4, numbered paragraph 9?
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry? Numbered paragraph 9?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I'm trying to find, for
clarification for the record --
MR. BAKER: I'm talking about page 5 of the
letter of February 2nd, 2015.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right, but I'm not
seeing nine items in sequence. So you're going to have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
to tell me which nine items. Starting on page 9 with
numbered paragraph 1?
MR. BAKER: No. Starting on page 5, and
ending on page 5, nine listed items, items 1 through 5,
followed by items 1 through 4.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Good, thank you. Even
though, in fact, certain items, like number -- the first
numbered 1 is really one, two, three different items;
and the number 2 is three different items, so it's
really more than that. But, okay. So we just want to
be clear, it's all the items comprised under -- on page
5 of the February 2nd, 2015 letter under numbered
paragraphs 1 through 5, and then the second set of
numbered paragraphs 1 through 4, okay.
MR. BAKER: Agreed. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: So the question again,
Mr. Baker?
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Given this fact, why do addresses
generated after my challenge have any validity in
establishing the Galuterias' significant physical
presence at Curtis Street unit before November 4, 2014?
What I'm specifically referring to is eight of the nine
items listed on page 5 of the February 2, 2015 letter.
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Vague and ambiguous;
compound; calls for speculation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: And on top of it, it
misstates -- even given the numbering, the items
collected, the three items collected under number 1 are
all from 2012. Two of the three items under paragraph 2
predate the November complaint. The first numbered
paragraph 4, copy of rental agreement dated June 15,
2011, predates; first numbered paragraph 5 is a rental
agreement November 1, 2013, that predates. So I don't
know where you get that eight out of nine.
MR. McCORRISTON: And beyond that, we're being
asked to respond in this document to a complaint that
was filed, okay, what information do you have at that
time. So where do you go for the information at that
time, is what's available for you in your mailbox at
that time. So I don't even see the inference here.
This is just completely immaterial.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay, all right.
Mr. Baker, you're going to have to -- go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Well, am I allowed to
ask him anything?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. There was
material inside those envelopes that you thought proved
that he lived at that address before the postmarked
date; is that correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
THE WITNESS: I think what this shows, dating
back to 2012 going through June -- I'm just looking at
the dates -- June 2014, July going down to November,
December, is a continuous -- is a continuous use of
Curtis Street.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: And his address was
referred to in there?
THE WITNESS: Yes. And so what it shows me is
it's not just -- I can't only look at, well, what came
in after November 1st, but I'm also looking what before,
but that shows a certain continuity where, in my mind,
where Mr. Galuteria and Mrs. Galuteria conduct their
financial affairs from, they receive money at, and so
that weighed in my mind very heavily in my determination
of their residency.
I mean, one of the first things I think
people take care of is their money, and where it goes
and all of that stuff, so looking at that, obviously I
need to weigh that a little heavier than, say, a motor
vehicle driver license card, okay. But, I mean, that's
the kind of thing that we have to look at, I have to
look at when I do these types of voter challenges, and
so -- if you want an insight into what my thinking is,
okay?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Baker, next
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
question.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I would just point out
that the items that he was just mentioning are dated
after the challenge, therefore, making it quite possible
if one were attempting to get around the challenge, one
could have arranged the documentation in such a way
that --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, you're in
argument again. So please, questions for Mr. Takahashi,
that's all that's proper at this time.
MR. BAKER: I have one more question for
Mr. Takahashi.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Looking at page 6 of your letter,
did you consider your investigation complete regarding
whether the Galuterias ever established a, quote,
"significant physical presence," end quote, at the
Curtis Street unit as the Dupree guidance requires when
Brickwood failed to provide you witnesses or employees
who could verify his residence there when he denied you
access to his mother's unit to verify his residence
there, and when he only provided three partial
photographs alleged to be of his mother's unit taken
after the challenge? That's the question. What's your
answer?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Your question is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
terribly argumentative, misstates the Dupree requirement
and so on. Recognizing that fact, I'm going to let it
in, and Mr. Takahashi can respond.
MR. McCORRISTON: Just for the record, may I
have an objection.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes.
MR. NOMURA: The City poses an objection as
well.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Fine. Go ahead, answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I consider my research and
fact finding complete, given what I was able to obtain
both independently and from -- and through sworn
statements from the Galuterias.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: And on balance,
considering, as Mr. Baker contends, the Galuterias'
refusal to allow certain investigation or site visits or
whatever.
THE WITNESS: You know, site visits, they're
incredibly intrusive to people. Sometimes we're allowed
in. We have on occasion been allowed in, other times
not. But they are, they are intrusive. I, you know --
what can I say about site visits? It's -- well, let me
just -- let me say this, I went into this one, you know,
situation where I sent staff on a site visit, and they
came out of a three-bedroom apartment and there were
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
like nine people living in it, and it was kind of filthy
and whatnot, and I mean, you know, site visits are --
they're -- I'm trying to say this nicely because these
were previous challenges, but -- well, put it this way,
I don't think I need a site visit in order to establish
residency for a person, provided I have a lot of other
documents and sworn statements, and I'll just leave it
at that.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Next question. Mr. Takahashi,
are you especially responsive to the concerns of
Brickwood Galuteria because he is a State Senator? I
say that, because in your letter to Brickwood's lawyer,
dated December 22, 2014, Exhibit H, in which we have not
seen before this round, says, quote, it is important
that a decision on this challenge be rendered
expeditiously so as to avoid the appearance that Mr. and
Mrs. Galuteria were extended any undue courtesy in light
of Mr. Galuteria's role as a State Senator.
So the question is, are you especially
responsive to the concerns of Brickwood Galuteria
because he is a State Senator?
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Argumentative.
Mischaracterizes the document.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: That's Exhibit H to
whose --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
MR. BAKER: The Clerk's letter to Brickwood
Galuteria's lawyer, dated 12/22/14, Exhibit H.
MR. NOMURA: Exhibit H is not --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: To whose filing?
Clerk's filing? Mr. --
MR. BAKER: The Clerk's letter to --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I understand that, but
where? You say Exhibit H, but Exhibit H to what?
MR. NOMURA: I believe Mr. Baker's referring
to Exhibit G to the Clerk's filing. It's a letter dated
December 22nd to Mr. McCorriston and Ms. Wan, signed by
Bernice Mau, the then City Clerk.
MR. BAKER: We apologize for that error,
Mr. Chair. It's sometimes difficult when you're trying
to read these things on a screen.
MR. McCORRISTON: Mr. Chairman, to the extent
he asking the witness if the witness gave Senator
Galuteria any special consideration because of his
office, I don't have any problem with that question.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. So it's clear on
the record, Exhibit G to the Clerk's filing of
November 23.
THE WITNESS: Okay, you want me to answer? I
think what was happening at the time, if I'm referring
to the right letter, is that we were dealing with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
challenge and needing responses and wanting to get
documents so that we could rule on this challenge, and
we were asked to provide an extension of time for
Mr. Galuteria and his wife to respond, which would have
gone into, I believe -- they wanted, originally I
believe it was February, and I didn't want it to go on
that long. I didn't want this process to -- for it to
look like, well, we gave extra time because he was State
Senator, I said, no, I'm only going to go till
January 5th. That was my recommendation to the City
Clerk at the time, and so, you know, that was the reason
for sending this letter, so -- and I believe it states
it.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Next. We notice that Juliette
Galuteria readily supplied her phone number, unredacted,
on her lease agreement for her unit, which is
Exhibit 16, our Exhibit 16, the Clerk's Exhibit I.
The question is, why are the home phone numbers
of the Galuterias redacted from the many forms given in
your Exhibits K through P? Might not the home phone
numbers help show where the Galuterias actually live?
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Calls for
speculation. The document speaks for itself.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes, sustained, and it's
not really relevant. Next question.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Well, I refer you to our
Exhibit 19, and just to make the point --
MR. NOMURA: Well, you have a question, ask
the question.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, your
Exhibit 19, if I've got it correct, is a citation to
some provisions of Hawaii Revised Statutes, Motor
Vehicle Code --
MR. BAKER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: -- part of Chapter 286,
Section 116.5.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: All right. Now, the
exhibit speaks for itself. We're assuming that this is
an accurate summary of this statutory provision. Do you
have a question to Mr. Takahashi about this?
MR. BAKER: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) My question is, Mr. Takahashi, do
you regard this guidance as serious legal administrative
guidance for people who are changing their address and
otherwise dealing with their driver's licenses?
MR. NOMURA: If you could just show him the
document that you're referring to.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Yes. Oh, he's got to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
see it, yeah.
A. This is the law governing changing your address
for driver licensing, so it is what it is. There are
penalties and, you know --
Q. My question is, do you, as the City Clerk, take
that document seriously?
A. Yeah. I just changed my address by sending a
letter to driver's licensing last month, but they
haven't processed it yet. So, yes, me personally, yes,
I do.
Q. Thank you. Then I have one final point. I'll
eliminate the comment because that will be viewed as out
of place. But I would remind you --
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: If you have a question,
sir.
MR. BAKER: I have a question.
Q. (By Mr. Baker) Isn't it correct that you want
your decision affirmed and that this can be considered
prima facie evidence of bias in favor of the Galuterias?
MR. NOMURA: Objection. Calls for
speculation; vague and ambiguous.
MR. McCORRISTON: Argumentative.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Sustained. You don't
have to answer the question, unless you would like to.
MR. BAKER: That's it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Any recross?
MR. McCORRISTON: I'll save it for argument.
I have no recross.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Nomura,
anything further? Redirect?
MR. NOMURA: Real briefly.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NOMURA:
Q. Mr. Takahashi, let me refer you to your letter,
dated December 12, 2014, marked for identification as
Exhibit 17 by the Appellant. I'll ask you a few
questions about that.
Your letter asks for responses to supplemental
questions. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And let me direct you specifically, because I
think Mr. Baker has asked a series of questions
regarding paragraph number 3 to the supplemental
questions. You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You recall receiving the Galuterias' response to
supplemental question 3?
A. Yes.
Q. And let me show you the document identified as
City Clerk's Exhibit I. I take it you received that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
document on or about January 2015, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Actually the letter itself is January 2014, but
it was an obvious mistype, correct?
A. Yes, typo.
Q. In your mind did the Galuterias sufficiently
respond to your supplemental question number 3 that you
asked back in December?
A. Yes.
Q. And they submitted a sworn declaration --
A. Correct.
Q. -- responding to question number 3, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. NOMURA: I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Any recross, Mr. Baker?
MR. BAKER: (Shakes head from side to side.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. I believe you're
excused, Mr. Takahashi. Oh, I'm sorry, did you want
to question --
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: I have a question.
EXAMINATION
BY BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON:
Q. The Arizona case that was Kauzlarich that was
cited in Dupree in 2009 regarding the size of residences
and --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Did you deem that at all relevant to this case?
A. You know, I know that's one of the things that in
that case they looked at, but as I mentioned, I have had
staff go into situations where they have done site
visits where it was a two-bedroom apartment with nine
people in it, you know, so it's not entirely out of the
realm -- out of the realm of possibility that many
people can occupy a small space. So that's what I can
say about that, I mean.
I don't judge how people choose to live, if you
will, I mean. And speaking from my own personal -- I
have relatives that come over for two months out of the
year, and all four of us do it in a one-bedroom
apartment. As stated, it's not easy, but you do what
you have to do, and so -- but, you know, that's -- I do
know of other situations in certain areas of Honolulu,
and voter registration rolls also support this where you
have a four-bedroom house but there might be 15 people
in there of various extended families and things, and
so, you know, I can't be judging whether, you know,
542 square feet is enough or not enough, or whatever.
Q. I only ask because you cited the Dupree case, and
the Dupree case cited that case, and so -- but you are
not invoking that case specifically at all, correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Yeah, no. I think, you know, Dupree was an
interesting case because it involved residency on the
island of Lanai, if you will, which is a very, very
small, tight-knit community, one store, where people run
into each other because they have to go to that one
store or, you know.
And so Dupree is important, and we have to take
the tenets of what Dupree says, but like any voter
registration situation, it's all very -- comes down to
fact specific, yeah, and what are the circumstances and
the reasons why people may spend their time in a
particular place, whether it's 60/40 or 40/60 or
whatnot, you know. And in this case there are family
caregiving responsibilities that are the reasons for
having to split time between two locations, and we've --
this is not the first time we've seen this. We've seen
this in other voter registration challenges as well.
And so I don't go to the point of questioning,
well, how much caregiving is necessary. That's not my
point. That's not what I do, yeah, and so -- but I have
to take these things, these sworn statements, you know,
at their face value.
Q. A previous hearing months ago the issue came up
of segregating the ballots. Why did you feel that it
was impossible to segregate the ballots?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. Okay. Well, firstly, if you look at the timeline
of how this all arrived, Mr. Baker send out an e-mail to
us challenging the voter registration of Mr. Galuteria
and Ms. Galuteria, I believe it was a Sunday night after
the absentee walk-in voting process had concluded. At
that point, because the Galuterias had voted on the
Thursday prior to that, there's no way to pick out their
secret ballot out from the rest of the ballots that are
in the ballot boxes from our absentee polling place at
Honolulu Hale.
We have, I think, roughly 6,000 people or so that
vote at Honolulu Hale. They can vote either via
electronic voting machines or deposit their ballot into
any one of four precinct counters that are out there, so
even if I knew, well, they used this counter and that
counter, the ballots are mixed in with other people from
that district that voted, so I wouldn't know which
ballot to pull out regardless. So that's an
impossibility in terms of segregating the ballots.
If the challenge had arrived before they voted,
we could certainly intercept the person's vote and hold
it on the side, but in this case that wasn't how it
happened, so, yeah.
Q. Okay. Can you remind me what day it was that the
Galuterias voted, what day it was?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
166
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
A. They voted on, I believe it was October 30th,
which was a Thursday, and the challenge came in
November 3rd, I believe, which is the Monday before the
general election. And so, you know, there was no way to
intercept it, and no way to pull out a secret ballot
from the boxes that are -- from the voted ballots that
are already there.
And if I might add, I don't have the authority to
unilaterally go in there and go into the ballots,
because these are machines and memory cards and things
that are provided to us by the State Office of
Elections, and so I cannot unilateral -- even though I'm
using the machines, I cannot just go in there and cut
open a ballot box seal and start rifling through the
ballots.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: All right, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Further questions?
MR. BAKER: Question, yes.
FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Mr. Takahashi, could you not have separated these
ballots by district and precinct?
A. Well, one, I couldn't go into the ballots, first
of all. I cannot unilaterally go in there. But, two,
any ballot can be segregated by precinct. If you have a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
bunch of them, certainly you can do a random sorting out
of precincts. But what are you -- where are you going
with this? I mean I'm not --
Q. I guess my point is that on a challenge, it would
have been possible for you to do more than you did to
endeavor to segregate the ballots in question, and you
have no idea how many other ballots may have been
involved in this process, and in any case, it wouldn't
have been all that long before the other ballots would
have been processed. So I'm just saying that this
doesn't look like excessive zeal or haste on your part.
But I'm sure that that's considered derogatory and
unacceptable, so I'm going to stop talking.
MR. NOMURA: Let me move to strike that, that
was argumentative. That wasn't even a question.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: It was argumentative,
and I think it's -- Mr. Takahashi has already testified
to what's involved here.
Mr. Takahashi, if you want to respond to it,
you can go ahead.
THE WITNESS: No, that's okay.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Any further questions?
All right. You're excused, Mr. Takahashi.
(Witness excused.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Nomura, you have no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
further witnesses?
MR. NOMURA: No further witnesses.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Baker, you
did not list rebuttal witnesses.
MR. BAKER: Yes, but I would like to call a
rebuttal witness.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Before we rule on
whether or not you can, please advise us who that
rebuttal witness would be and what that person would --
that you anticipate that person would testify to.
MR. BAKER: That rebuttal witness would be
Michael Ryan, who is the resident manager of Royal
Capitol Plaza, and who has direct knowledge of who is
living in which apartments by what registration, over
what period of time, and who has what parking permits
for which parking places, information which we have been
unable to obtain from any other source.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Before we go
further on that, when we had our telephone conference
call on Wednesday, three days ago, you told us that you
had not spoken to the resident manager, you did not know
what he would testify to. Are you saying that now you
have spoken to him and you have information as to what
he would testify to?
MR. BAKER: No, sir. I have not spoken to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
him. What I have is information as to what he could
testify to that has relevance to this case.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Okay. Mr. Baker, it's
very speculative. What you're asking us to do, in
essence, is to conduct an investigation or discovery
during an evidentiary hearing. It is way, way, way too
late for that. And on top of which, of course, you did
not identify rebuttal witnesses. This is the kind of
thing that goes to prehearing or pretrial preparation.
This kind of investigation and discovery needs to be
done before the hearing and not during the hearing,
taking up everyone's time with what may or may not be a
productive analysis of things.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. So Mr. Ryan
would not be able to address new information that was
brought up today, it would be -- he would be there to
basically present what he should have presented in our
first hearing; is that true?
MR. BAKER: He would be able to respond to the
rules about residence in Royal Capitol Plaza that we
introduced in the first hearing, and that have not been
adequately responded to to date.
MR. McCORRISTON: That's speculation, because
as the Chair's pointed out twice now, he doesn't know --
A, he doesn't even know when this guy took his job,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
which is relatively recent. He's never spoken to him,
never had a substantive conversation, doesn't know the
answers to those questions. As you've pointed out, it
would be tantamount to a discovery deposition of
somebody who probably doesn't have personal knowledge
over 90 percent what's going here. So it's speculation,
upon speculation, on speculation as to what he would
say.
So I think the Chair is absolutely right, and
I would object to any further delay in this matter. We
do have a Senate hearing on another related matter
that's coming up, and I think we've got to have this
thing decided sooner rather than later.
MR. NOMURA: I join in the objection.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: I would throw in one
more point, and that is even if the resident manager
could testify that Mr. and/or Mrs. Galuteria violated
these rules, it doesn't prove that they weren't residing
there. And so I just don't see how this is -- this
would be relevant or material testimony.
We're looking at the fact of residence and
not whether residents did or did not comply with the
condo rules in some technical way. Nobody's saying he
didn't pay rent or pay condo fees or anything like that
that might create some question as to whether he was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
171
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
actually there or not. So I don't see how this goes
anywhere.
All right, at this point it's 4:30 p.m.
Ordinarily I'd want to take a break and let everybody
collect their thoughts and put together their closing
arguments, but -- all right, off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Sure. Back on the
record.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: Are you aware of what
day the resident manager took his position?
MR. BAKER: No. He has records of all of
these things, so when he actually took his job is not
relevant to the records that he has of who was residing
in the place, and who were guests, and who were duly
signed in as tenants.
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: I also defer to the
Chair's rationale on residency as opposed to rule
abidance.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Off the record for a
moment.
(Discussion off the record.)
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: We're going to proceed
then with closing arguments orally, and Mr. Baker, you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
172
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
can go ahead.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our
position is that the Galuterias have lived and continue
to live at 3462 Pakui Street in Palolo, having never
abandoned it. The Galuterias' evidence presented after
my challenge is dated after my complaints were filed on
November 2nd, 2014, and so therefore fails to alter the
Galuterias' acts in their totality during the 2011 to
November 4, 2014 period, the time that they allege they
intended to abandon their Palolo residence.
On burden of proof, the law says, quote, "A
domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it
is shown to have been changed. Where a change of
domicile is alleged the burden of proving it rests upon
the person making the allegation." That's from
Mitchell versus United States, 88 U.S. 350, 353 in
1874. And, quote, "a domicile once established is
presumed to continue and one alleging that a change has
taken place has the burden of proof." And that's from
Arakaki versus Arakaki in 1972.
The guiding law in the Galuterias' case is
Dupree versus Hiraga, where in a case strikingly
similar to the current one before the Board, the Hawaii
Supreme Court ruled on Sol Kaho'ohalahala's effort to
establish residence on Lanai, for purpose of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
173
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
representing Lanai on the Maui County Council. The
court ruled that Kaho'ohalahala failed to establish his
significant physical presence on Lanai, making Lanai
his, quote, "only one residence," and that he had
failed to establish he had abandoned his Lahaina home,
where his wife resided.
The Court said, quote, "In order to
relinquish one's domicile or residence there must be an
intent to remain permanently at the new place where one
is physically present and to simultaneously abandon the
previous permanent place of abode. Acquisition of the
new domicile must have been completed and the animus to
remain in the new location fixed, before the former
domicile can be considered lost." And that's from
Dupree versus Hiraga. The court added, quote, "The
person seeking to relocate his residence to a new
district must establish a dwelling or otherwise live in
the district, in the commonly understood meaning of
those terms."
The factual issue is whether the Galuterias
abandoned their Palolo residence. And the facts show
that the Galuterias never abandoned their Palolo home,
nor established their significant physical presence at
Royal Capitol Plaza, making the one-bedroom,
one-bathroom, one-closet 548 square foot unit of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
174
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Brickwood's mother their, quote, "only one residence,"
end quote, as the Dupree test requires.
The Galuterias characterized intent as,
quote, "a person's state of mind" citing Attorney
General opinion 86-10, but the law in this state is
that a, quote, "person's intention is usually
determined by his acts viewed in their totality." That
is from Arakaki versus Arakaki. It is not some
mysterious and esoteric truth that only the Appellee
has access to by testifying to what was in their minds
at some previous time. Intention is determined by
one's acts viewed in their totality.
The Galuterias' attorney states the general
principle that a person need not live in an area for
any particular time in order to establish residency.
The Hawaii Supreme Court, however, also clearly stated,
quote, "As a general proposition, that principle is
correct. If a person who has been living on the
mainland packs up their belongings and ships them to
Hawaii, flies to Honolulu and moves in with family
members with the intent of making Hawaii their
permanent home, they could be considered residents from
the day they arrived. At the other extreme, consider a
person who has a home in Los Angeles, flies to Honolulu
and registers to vote, and then returns to Los Angeles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
on the same day, all with the stated intent of making
Honolulu his or her permanent residence. Recognizing
such a person as a Honolulu resident would render the
physical presence requirements in HRS 11-13(4) an
absurdity." And that's citation from Dupree.
Or, in this case, someone who lives in
Palolo, drives to Kakaako, registers to vote, then
returns to Palolo on the same day, all with the stated
intent of making Kakaako his or her permanent
residence, that person would render the physical
presence requirement of the statute an absurdity if he
or she were recognized as a Kakaako resident.
The Clerk's position is in error, because it
rests on evidence the Clerk gathered to support the
Galuterias' intent to maintain their place of residency
at Brickwood's mother's unit. The Clerk said he found
no evidence that, quote, "demonstrated any intent to
abandon the Curtis Street address," that was in his
letter to me of February 2, when what is needed is
evidence that the Galuterias ever abandoned their
Palolo home. Evidence of intent not to abandon their
place of residency in another location does not address
the requirement that they prove they have abandoned
their Palolo home as their, quote, "only one
residence," end quote.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
176
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
The Clerk also conducted an incomplete
investigation, turning up solid evidence showing the
Galuterias continued to live in their Palolo home,
ignoring same in favor of the Galuterias' self-serving
statements and post-challenge address changes, then
with bias joining the Galuterias' legal team's efforts
to affirm an erroneous decision.
It is a fact, as our documentation has shown,
that the Galuterias claimed a property tax exemption on
their Palolo home for years after they purportedly
moved their, quote, "only one residence," end quote, to
Kakaako. This is not a false claim, but a fact. In a
law court, the fact would be admissible, especially
because it was signed under penalty of perjury. The
fact of claiming and obtaining real property tax
exemptions for nine years and only seeking to rescind
the exemptions after I filed my complaint is strong
evidence that the Galuterias had no intention of making
his mother's unit their permanent residence. They were
content to leave their home exemption in place year
after year because it was claimed honestly and
correctly. They do live in their Palolo home.
Let me be very clear. Clever lawyering
doesn't change the fact that the Galuterias never
abandoned their home at Pakui Street. So what if two
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
177
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
of our three testifying witnesses supported Galuteria's
opponent? That doesn't change the fact that the
Galuterias never had a proven, quote, "significant
physical presence" at his mother's 548 square foot,
one-bedroom, one-bathroom, one-closet unit. The
Galuterias continue to live in Palolo, as the evidence
shows, and continued for years to properly claim a real
property tax exemption there. If bias can defeat
someone's testimony or declarations, then the
Galuterias are conceding they can say nothing useful to
the Board to explain why they continued for years to
claim under penalty of perjury their homeowners
exemption.
The evidence demonstrated that the Galuterias
have lived and continue to live at 3462 Pakui Street in
Palolo, having never abandoned it. Evidence the
Galuterias have presented to the contrary was created
after my complaints were filed, and does not change the
acts of the Galuterias in their totality at the time
they allege they abandoned their Palolo residence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. McCorriston.
MR. McCORRISTON: Mr. Chair, members of the
Board, thank you very much for all your time spent on
this matter. We appreciate it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
178
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
I apparently sat through a different
evidentiary hearing than what you just heard of in
Appellant's closing statement. The fact of the matter
is, let's start with the homeowners exemption, at the
time that was applied for for the Palolo home the
Galuterias were, in fact, there. There was no intent
to mislead or no perjury. It was absolutely factual
when Mr. Galuteria signed that exhibit.
Thereafter a mistake was made, and we've been
very upfront with that from the beginning. The
Galuterias did not submit year-after-year declarations
that they were living there, as suggested by Appellant.
What happens is the home exemption is automatically
renewed unless opted out, as testified to by Senator
Galuteria. And we did make a mistake on doing that.
We did rectify the mistake. In fact, the home
exemption was removed retroactively because all the
back payments were made. As things stand now, during
all the relevant years the Galuterias haven't taken a
home exemption. There's a real legal question as to
whether or not the presumption even applies because the
home exemption has been vitiated. To the extent that
it does apply, Senator Galuteria as offered ample
evidence as to the fact that he does reside, as does
his wife, Lehua, at the Curtis Street address.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Let's start with the supposition that that's
all it is, because they haven't presented any evidence
that the Galuterias have resided at Palolo Street
continuously since 2005.
You have unrebutted evidence that the
Galuterias, Mr. and Mrs., lived on Bishop Street at the
Executive Centre. There's absolutely no rebuttal
testimony about that. They lived there because that
was in District 12. They both resided there, and they
both had a driver's license there, from Senator
Galuteria, and they also never had any challenge to the
fact in any evidence produced by the Appellant that
they lived at the Bishop Street address until they
moved to Curtis. What you have from them is inference
and supposition. What you have from us by declaration
and other sworn testimony is fact.
The Galuterias lived at the Bishop Street
address until the district lines were changed for
Senatorial District No. 12. When the district lines
were changed, consistent with their intent to reside in
the district, the Galuterias moved to the Curtis Street
address and asked their mother to move in with them
because her physical condition started to deteriorate.
She was on the Windward side of the island. They
wanted to keep a closer eye on her. That was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
180
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
consistent with the directions they had from the
treating physicians for Juliette Galuteria, and that's
why -- all of this is unrebutted -- that is why they
moved into the Curtis Street address, and which is part
of District No. 12, and that is where they resided.
Did they stay there a hundred percent of the
time? We've never said that. Of course not. We've
shown through ample evidence, both in the City Clerk
proceedings and in these proceedings, why they've split
their time between the Curtis Street address and the
Palolo address, mostly because of a family situation
involving their daughter and their grandchildren, which
needed Lehua's help and assistance because of the
situation that was ongoing there. Lehua did stay at
Curtis Street. Her expressed intention and her sworn
testimony is she desired to stay there, but she had to
spend a majority of her time in Palolo because of the
exigencies of the family situation there.
Consistent with all that is Brickwood's
testimony that in a very difficult situation for him to
live apart from Lehua, he had to spend more time with
his mother in Curtis Street because of her physical
condition and the deteriorating nature of it, and then
Lehua had to split time and spend more time in Palolo
as that situation worsened.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
181
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
Now the Board has heard evidence that the
Galuterias, consistent with their intention to always
live in District No. 12, intend to move to the Ala
Moana Pacific Condominium, also within District No. 12,
and continue to rent out the premises in Palolo. There
is absolutely a consistent thread throughout all the
evidence in this case, not inference, not supposition,
not I wish these were the facts, but solid evidence
that the Galuterias intended the Curtis Street
residence as their residence when they voted in 2014.
And that is the only question before the
Board, is at the time of the election 2014, were they
properly registered to vote in District No. 12, and
evidence is not only by a preponderance of evidence, if
the burden of proof was on us, but it's not, as we put
forth -- and I'm not going to repeat all the legal
arguments we put in our submissions to the Board
earlier setting forth the case law and what the
presumptions are, they're all set forth there -- but
even if we had the burden of proof, ample, a
preponderance of the evidence adduced at these
proceedings are that was the Galuterias' intention, the
Galuterias actually lived at the Curtis Street, and
what the circumstances were.
The evidence that was pointed out as to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
statement to the Clerk that you just heard in paragraph
12, I think it was, you look at the response to that,
where Mr. Galuteria said why may have been spent a
majority of my time at Palolo in December of 2014
because that was the time when the family's situation
was so critical, but look at the response to that
question in the City Clerk's letter in the declaration
filed by Mr. Galuteria where he set forth in detail,
you know, what percentage of the time he was spending
at Curtis Street, which was more than 50, and what
percentage Lehua spent at Curtis Street, which was less
than 50 because of the exigencies of the family
situation, and what it is and what it was at that time
in 2014.
So what we have really is very clear
unrebutted evidence, except for three witnesses. Let's
look at who those three witnesses were. Two were
supporters of Senator Galuteria's political rival in
the 2014 election, neither of whom ever went to the
floor where the Galuterias reside, I think it's the
24th floor. None of them have any knowledge of what
happens on the 24th floor. They all acknowledge that
you don't have to go through the lobby to park there.
They actually provided absolutely nothing credible to
suggest that the Galuterias do not live there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
The third witness was almost bizarre. I
don't know why he was even called. Yes, I live at RCP,
I do live there. I don't live on the 20th floor. I
don't know any of these people. I wouldn't know them
if I saw them, I don't know who they are. I mean what
was the purpose of his testimony? Absolutely nothing.
And I would suggest to you all of his witnesses, all
three witnesses provided absolutely nothing that is
material and critical to your disposition of this case,
In fact, if anything, they helped us.
So on the basis of this record, and the basis
of a very complete and thorough examination, I was
impressed by the City's testimony in this case, what
they did, on the basis of that analysis there only can
be one conclusion in this case, is that for the
purposes of the Board of Registration law, which
requires an intent, crucially, unrebutted, and physical
presence, again unrebutted, the test has been satisfied
even if we have the burden of proof. Thank you.
MR. NOMURA: I'll be very brief. The City
Clerk, as you heard this afternoon, presented very
cogent, very relevant, very thoughtful testimony that
supported, that explained his February 12th, 2015
decision.
Mr. Takahashi's credible testimony makes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
clear that his decision should be affirmed by the
Board. He examined the totality of the circumstances.
He is not pressured by any political party, any
political campaign. He looked at the record that was
presented up to him by both Mr. Baker and the
Galuterias.
Mr. Baker, throughout this proceeding, not
only before this hearing but at the time his challenge
was submitted, failed to present the City Clerk with
any affirmative evidence to present a prima facie case
to undermine the City Clerk's decision.
I would suggest that the City Clerk, his
February 2015 letter, and his testimony today all
supports the Board's affirmance of the decision. So I
would ask that this challenge be dismissed.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Mr. Baker, you can
respond.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, the only comment
that I would make at this point is that I took on this
case because Royal Capitol Plaza friends told me that
Brickwood Galuteria did not live there. That was my
only motivation and concern. He has not disabused me of
that impression.
And I'm sorry for all of the trouble that it
seems to have caused to everybody, including myself,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
but I stand by my position.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Anything further? Or
are we concluded?
All right. The Board will meet with its
counsel -- not today -- and put together findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and opinion and decision as
soon as we reasonably can, being mindful of the
calendar, and get back to you as soon as we can.
Did you want to add anything to that?
BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON: I think that we should
do that as quickly as possible, yeah. That's all.
MR. McCORRISTON: Just as a housekeeping
matter, Pohukaina Street, the main entrance for the
parking garage, is the one you want to go out of,
because the other one might not have the gate up. But
the main entrance should have the gate up when you
leave.
CHAIRPERSON BURDICK: Thank you all. Hearing
adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m. the hearing was
concluded.)
-o0o-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
186
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103 (808) 671-7665
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, DONNA N. BABA, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter in the State of Hawaii, do hereby certify:
That I was acting as shorthand reporter in the
foregoing matter on Saturday, December 5, 2015.
That the foregoing proceedings were taken down
in machine shorthand by me at the time and place stated
herein, and were thereafter reduced to print under my
supervision;
That the foregoing represents, to the best of
my ability, a correct transcript of the proceedings had
in the foregoing matter.
I further certify that I am not counsel for
any of the parties hereto, nor in any way interested in
the outcome of the cause named in the caption.
Dated: __________________________________.
___________________________
DONNA N. BABA, CSR #103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
![Antonette Port [portr001@hawaiLrr.com] Sent: Monday, February … · 2010. 2. 3. · Koolani Paragraph 3.7 (slrtla) 12-Galuteria 23-Brower Kuilima Estates East Article 3, 4 23-Hee](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/60d1c836305e9d604d208145/antonette-port-portr001-sent-monday-february-2010-2-3-koolani-paragraph.jpg)
![Welcome []6c841620-d14d-44e5-a058-99234d4ba4ed/pr... · Examinations: Registration, Cancellation, Annulment, Examination Modalities, Transcript of Records 8. The Law Institute 9](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5b8f92f209d3f2b01e8c9a36/welcome-6c841620-d14d-44e5-a058-99234d4ba4edpr-examinations-registration.jpg)
