(11-05-2024, 08:39 PM)Obie Wrote: The letter you posted begins,
Dear Ms Ruppert:
In your email to me dated whatever
You contacted our lawyer and he replied to you. There is a charge for that reply and all I am saying is you should be billed.
----------
Aloha Mr. O,
You are correct. Mahalo for reminding me.
The email to which Mr. Oda refers was in ANSWER to him filing documents with the court that reference me- BY NAME .
I was never the instigator in this ridiculous flexing of muscles. I am not a court fan. But I will not sit back and allow HPPOA or their attorneys to misrepresent me.
So, here you go. My ANSWER and the email to which Barron Oda refers.
“NON-PARTY AND KNOWN SUPPORTER OF PLAINTIFF, PATRICIA RUPPERT..."
Regarding Attorney Barron Oda’s Motion for Reconsideration, a couple of things for the attorney to “reconsider.”
1. Reconsideration of “Support.” Mr. Oda does not know me. Mr. Oda has never spoken to me. If Mr. Oda had, he would know that I have offered information and support (emphasis added) to the HPPOA board of directors, on numerous occasions (emphasis added). And while at this point, I do not support the stance this recent board has taken, adopting 421J law, dissolving owner/member committees, diverting 5% of Restricted Road Fee Money to fund non-road projects, I continue (emphasis added) to offer information to the HPPOA board of directors. In fact, much of the information I have shared with the HPPOA board is also the same information I have shared with Plaintiff, Nicole Craig. The fact that the HPPOA board does not wish to investigate or use information I have offered to them, is the result of choice- theirs (emphasis added). As HPPOA does not want information, regardless of its relevance, that does not “support” their position.
2. Reconsideration of “Quasi-Governmental/Municipal Authority.” If Mr. Oda had researched any of the historical Court documents, regarding Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) he would have been made aware of the conundrum the Court faced in granting Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) the power and authority to “compel” HPP Owners to pay Restricted Road Fee Money. The reason being, that Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) was and is (emphasis added) a voluntary community association, and while the Courts (District and Hawaii Supreme) were agreeable to, “enforce equitable coercive orders requiring fee payment” (for road maintenance) from HPP lot owners, in doing so the Courts did not want to “clothe” the corporation with “quasi-governmental powers.” Which is why Paradise Hui Hanalike’s attorney argued that granting “equitable coercive orders” did not (emphasis added) “clothe” the community association with “quasi-municipal authority.” In granting “equitable coercive orders,” the Courts were, “merely declaring the obligations of all the individual owners to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the roads in question.”
3. Reconsideration of “Chilling of Volunteer Service.” If Mr. Oda had attended any of this past year’s board meetings and/or general owners/member meetings, and barring that, if Mr. Oda had read any of the posted board meeting or general owners/members meeting minutes, Mr. Oda would have discovered that there has been a great deal of concern from some HPP owners and HPPOA members, regarding the systematic take-over of owners/members committees by the board of directors. In fact, control by board members over owners/members committees, whose functions are to serve not only as “advisory” to the board but also as over-sight, have resulted in; committees being “dissolved” by board vote and reformed with hand-picked board members and board backers (i.e. Bylaws Committee); committees being dissolved due to owners/members resigning in protest to board control (i.e. Membership Meeting Committee); committee owners/members resigning due to unprofessional and partisan behavior of owners/members who are board backers and are seemingly encouraged and allowed to verbally abuse owners/members who are not in agreement with some of the board’s and their backers' decisions. If Mr. Oda would have read or discussed any of this with other owners/members who are not Hoffman and Finley, he would have realized (or should have) that the “atmosphere of lies, speculation, toxicity, and uncivility,” is a result of some of these same (emphasis added) named behaviors that his own clients have engaged in, as far back as August of 2022. In addition, an association that has a decades-long reputation of suing and being sued and currently finds itself embroiled in two lawsuits, is going to “chill” the involvement of any new owner/member enthusiasm.
**(Oh, and Mr. Oda, you may want to reconsider your use of the word ‘lie.” To whom are you referring to as liars? In what manner have they lied? And please have factual documentation to back up your accusations.) **
4. Reconsideration of “Financial Information.” If Mr. Oda had attended any of the Finance Committee meetings, he would have found that the board president considers everything (emphasis added) handed out and/or discussed in those meetings as “confidential.” Finance Committee members are not to share anything. Even though the C.I.P., Profit and Loss, and Balance Statements are all information owners/members are entitled to see. Even though Finance Committee meetings are open to anyone who is not a member of the committee and can see/hear anything that is occurring.
As for “vendors.” Finance Committee members are “privileged” to review vendor contracts that HPPOA has entered itself into. In fact, the Finance Committee, as per the Bylaws, has a duty to “evaluate performance of long-term contracts, six months or more, no less than at mid-contract and before renewing any contract…” So, as per the Bylaws, there does not appear to be any concern that “Existing vendors could be placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result.” HPPOA does not have trade secrets. Not unless you consider, trying to figure out how money is moved between accounts, how much was moved, when it was done, and who voted on it, a “trade-secret.”
5. Reconsideration of “Wiping Away the Confidential Space of Executive Session and Deterring New Volunteers to Join the Board.” If Mr. Oda would have asked me, or several other HPP Owners, about the “confidential space of executive sessions,” he would have found that there is “confidential” information that we were made privy to by some board members who are still (emphasis added) serving on this board. The corporation and its volunteers, over the years, have been less than careful about keeping track of documents, and controlling what information their board members disseminate to friends and family. So, if anyone is guilty of “leaking” information it is HPPOA.
As for, “deterring new volunteers to join the board,” if Mr. Oda, paid more attention to how some on the HPPOA board conduct business and governance, he would find that HPPOA has done a very good job of deterring themselves. This “deterring” is not solely social media generated. Becoming involved with a board that is being sued, not only being sued but challenges owners/members to sue them (“Bring it on!”), is not a situation in which most prudent individuals want to become involved. Being involved in a lawsuit is, as Mr. Oda stated, “toxic,” and it sends a message, “There is something very wrong with HPPOA.”
CONCLUSION:
To Mr. Oda and board members, if there is anything else you would care to present about me, to the Court, please be advised that I am more than willing to help you. In fact, I am more than willing to tell the Court what I know, everything I know (emphasis added) where I received my information/documentation from, and just how much of that documentation and information I have shared with you. The Court may also be interested in the responses from some of you, that my sharing generated.
Will I reconsider posting about HPPOA dysfunction to social media platforms? No. Even though some of the board backers have tried to have me voted off committees, because I refused to agree to not post about HPPOA matters and meetings (talk about “chilling”).
Submitting my name and screenshot posts to the Court will not deter me either. In fact, Mr. Oda and board? Please feel free to take a screenshot of this post and share it with the Court.
