10-16-2024, 11:36 AM
Do I really want to do this? Ah, what the heck…
The HPP Hui Hanalike case set the precedent for the other subdivisions to follow, and most of them used the same attorney. The m.o. that you describe of not notifying property owners that they were defendants in a class action suit, and denying them proper and adequate representation as required by law is strikingly similar to OLCA’s cases.
OLCA filed their first class-action against the property owners in 1987, Case #87-326, Third District Court, Orchidland Community Association vs. Hilo Development, et al. Most of the testimony provided by the defendants centered around the lack of notification and the requirement that the “plaintiffs must insure that the defendant class is properly and adequately represented”, and statements by the defendant class representatives (who were chosen by the plaintiffs) that they were unable to properly and adequately defend. This went on for several months until there was an entrance by an attorney for the defendant class. The very next filing was a motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs. The defendants countered that they wanted the case dismissed with prejudice (so that it could not be reopened), otherwise they were prepared to continue now that they had proper legal representation. The judge dismissed the case without prejudice.
Three years later OLCA filed the case again, Case #91-269. It was word for word the exact same case with the exception of the named defendants. None of the previously named defendants or any of the parties that provided testimony in the first case were included, they were replaced by all new defendant class representatives.
To clarify, in these class-actions the plaintiffs are required to insure that the defendant class is properly and adequately represented. The method used by OLCA and their attorney was to pick a few people from the defendant class and appoint them to be the representatives. In the first case none of the chosen reps were able to defend, but at least they lived here and took it seriously and were wise enough to understand the requirement and they were able to secure an attorney. So the case was terminated. Temporarily.
In the second case they chose people who wouldn’t show up at all, even choosing people who lived off island. At one point 2 people who had testified in the first case found out about the new case and submitted requests to be added as reps and to be notified of any future motions or hearings. They were never sent any notifications and the case concluded without their participation.
At another point the plaintiffs needed another defendant rep so they added a person who had been the secretary for OLCA and testified for the plaintiffs in the first case. And of course, he did not provide any defense.
So with no actions or motions filed in opposition for the defendant class, there was a hearing scheduled for plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Three people found out about it and showed up to oppose the motion but they were not allowed into the courtroom until after the judgment had been granted. Seriously, every bit of this is in the court documents. It’s incredibly blatant.
The main point I see with all of this is that it was necessary to do it this way.
The plaintiffs could not have won if a proper defense had been allowed to be presented, and they knew that. They want to fix the illegal activities of the past with more illegal activities. And these judgments still conflict with existing laws, and the arguing and legal battles will go on forever.
It must be past my bedtime, I’m getting cranky.
The HPP Hui Hanalike case set the precedent for the other subdivisions to follow, and most of them used the same attorney. The m.o. that you describe of not notifying property owners that they were defendants in a class action suit, and denying them proper and adequate representation as required by law is strikingly similar to OLCA’s cases.
OLCA filed their first class-action against the property owners in 1987, Case #87-326, Third District Court, Orchidland Community Association vs. Hilo Development, et al. Most of the testimony provided by the defendants centered around the lack of notification and the requirement that the “plaintiffs must insure that the defendant class is properly and adequately represented”, and statements by the defendant class representatives (who were chosen by the plaintiffs) that they were unable to properly and adequately defend. This went on for several months until there was an entrance by an attorney for the defendant class. The very next filing was a motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs. The defendants countered that they wanted the case dismissed with prejudice (so that it could not be reopened), otherwise they were prepared to continue now that they had proper legal representation. The judge dismissed the case without prejudice.
Three years later OLCA filed the case again, Case #91-269. It was word for word the exact same case with the exception of the named defendants. None of the previously named defendants or any of the parties that provided testimony in the first case were included, they were replaced by all new defendant class representatives.
To clarify, in these class-actions the plaintiffs are required to insure that the defendant class is properly and adequately represented. The method used by OLCA and their attorney was to pick a few people from the defendant class and appoint them to be the representatives. In the first case none of the chosen reps were able to defend, but at least they lived here and took it seriously and were wise enough to understand the requirement and they were able to secure an attorney. So the case was terminated. Temporarily.
In the second case they chose people who wouldn’t show up at all, even choosing people who lived off island. At one point 2 people who had testified in the first case found out about the new case and submitted requests to be added as reps and to be notified of any future motions or hearings. They were never sent any notifications and the case concluded without their participation.
At another point the plaintiffs needed another defendant rep so they added a person who had been the secretary for OLCA and testified for the plaintiffs in the first case. And of course, he did not provide any defense.
So with no actions or motions filed in opposition for the defendant class, there was a hearing scheduled for plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Three people found out about it and showed up to oppose the motion but they were not allowed into the courtroom until after the judgment had been granted. Seriously, every bit of this is in the court documents. It’s incredibly blatant.
The main point I see with all of this is that it was necessary to do it this way.
The plaintiffs could not have won if a proper defense had been allowed to be presented, and they knew that. They want to fix the illegal activities of the past with more illegal activities. And these judgments still conflict with existing laws, and the arguing and legal battles will go on forever.
It must be past my bedtime, I’m getting cranky.