Alleged voter fraud follow up

[leilanidude]

Even if it looks to the average person like what she did was fraudulent, even if it seems like it must be, the prosecuting attorney needs to prove without a doubt that her actions were taken intentionally. If she didn't realize what she did was against the law, or she "forgot" to change her real property tax status for a few years, it's difficult to take the case forward.
______________

Ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse.

I don't see her getting prosecuted by the county for the property tax issue - the state and IRS though is a different story as far as taxes/GET, etc. There are a lot of possible outcomes and none of us know the details - and probably never will, unless the state or IRS determines she willfully tried to avoid paying and decides to make an example out of her.

The vote fraud thing is different. There was a series of very deliberate actions taken to go into the office and register/change address, several times in order to be able to vote (and she did vote) in the other district. It does not matter if what she did, actually made a difference in the elections as a result. The law is very clear on this. If vote fraud is not taken seriously, we may as well be one of those 3rd world countries that are known for rigged elections.

If Mitch Roth doesn't publicly come out and recuse himself from the whole mess, it will surely be brought up in the next election - to come back and haunt him.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Ignorance of the law is an all too common defense. Sad but true.
Why do you think bankers don't go to jail for losing billions of dollars? They had no idea that when they...

I had a case before the prosecutor for bad checks. He didn't want to move it forward, because the defendant's grandmother sent a cassette tape from Ohio to Hawaii claiming her boys didn't realize she had closed the account... before they wrote 43 bad checks all over Kona. Slow learners. Then they moved to Hilo side when it got too hot for them over there, and started writing more NSF checks here.

Intent, or lack of intent can't be used in every case, but far too often it is.

As far as voting goes, look at writer and commentator Ann Coulter. She's voted twice in two separate elections. They had her voting stubs as evidence, but nothing happened.

[missydog1]

Well, yeah, but I would hope we of this County don't want to use Ann Coulter as an example of how we want our justice system to work out locally. Can we not be better than that?

There's a good case on intent and voter fraud in Hawai'i that discusses this element. Read it and see what you think.

Voter fraud is different from the check case, because the affidavits Tiffany AND Jeff Hunt signed laid out the legal consequences for providing false information right on the face of the document. The document also states definitely that a business address is not acceptable. Failure to read a document like that and clarify any confusion is on the person who signs it.

Tiffany is a native English speaker who has followed elections carefully, who has published at least once about voter registration fraud, who has stated her knowledge of the law as a strong point in her pursuit of public office. She is in an extremely weak position for pleading ignorance as a defense.

She has also published her own comments stating how extremely important it is to her to cast HER vote where she thinks it will count. Unlike snorkle. She has publicly stated that it was very important to her, and this was regarding one of the elections where she was registered out of district. All of which the police have .. perhaps her motives were not strictly rational, and she was not likely to change the outcome with that one vote (actually two votes, as her husband also reregistered), but as leilanidude points out, the law doesn't require that voter fraud be effective in its purpose. It does not even require a known motive.

Otherwise the law would contain a clause requiring proof that the fraud changed the outcome or was likely to change the outcome of a race, but there is no such element to the crime, which snorkle would know if he had read the legal elements posted in topics here.

The law requires that you knowingly sign the affidavit of residence. It does not require an intent to defraud. For example, someone who does not speak or read English, who signs the affidavit, someone who was drugged and led to the place of filing, and so forth, can use as defense they did not know what they were doing.

Registering to vote and competently filling out registration, or asking for assistance from a clerk over any confusion, should be in the skill set of every adult American citizen. If the process required full knowledge of every nuance of the law, you'd need to complete a seminar before proceeding. It's a simple question, state your legal residence.

When Tiffany registered to vote with the Jeff Hunt Surfboards address, it was something like the SIXTH time she had changed her voter registration address while living in Hawai'i, not even counting any in Wyoming. She was no novice to the process.


Kathy

[snorkle]

So you think Tiffany was carrying out an elaborate conspiracy to defraud the Electorate of Hawaii County?

I just ask myself; "Why would she do that?" If she is as knowledgeable as you say about the law and elections, wouldn't she see the pointlessness of it? It's more likely that Publishing a paper, Blogging, Running a retail business, raising toddlers, answering criticism, and running for office caused a distraction.

Honestly Kathy; What's her motive? A one vote advantage? Puleeeeze.
I, like Mitch Roth, prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt. You and the other few vindicteers choose otherwise. Let's see who is right.

I don't disagree with you at all about the importance of voting; And know Tiffany feels the same way. I was under 21 when I was sent to a War and couldn't vote(They've since lowered the legal voting age). In the 40 or so years since returning, I have never missed an election. I take great pride in going up to someone whom I know as an opponent and saying; "Dude, I just canceled out your vote!"

[Obie]

I would think that Rob's rule about fair play should kick in.

Tiffany is no longer a politician.She lost.She is not here to defend herself.

[missydog1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

So you think Tiffany was carrying out an elaborate conspiracy to defraud the Electorate of Hawaii County?

---

snorkle, if you want to engage people in debate, you ought to practice not distorting what the other person said to fit your retort. Case in point. Go find an actual quote and rebut that, instead of setting up a straw man argument.

quote:

---

I don't disagree with you at all about the importance of voting; And know Tiffany feels the same way.

---

How can you feel it is important to vote, but scoff at the notion it is important to vote in the correct district/precinct?

quote:

---

I take great pride in going up to someone whom I know as an opponent and saying; "Dude, I just canceled out your vote!"

---

OK, so do you stick to opponents that vote in the same district, or do you register and vote in any district where you would like to cancel out an opponent's vote, whether or not you live there? How about a straight answer for once?

quote:

---

It's more likely that Publishing a paper, Blogging, Running a retail business, raising toddlers, answering criticism, and running for office caused a distraction.

---

In point of fact, Tiffany did this allegedly fraudulent change of registration at the time she had quit her job, but before she began the BIC blog. She was not publishing any paper. Nor did she have toddlers, although she had one child about six/seven months old. She was certainly not running for office as you suggest in your post above.

snorkle, changing voter registration address is supposed to be triggered by a MOVE, a change in residence. Tiffany had previously filed changes when she made other moves on the island, but she did not move in November of 2008.

If a person is very busy, it's easy enough to NOT do something that one should, to commit an omission. But this alleged crime required a positive action on Tiffany's part. She was legally registered where she lived, but she made the decision and cleared her "busy" schedule to go to the Registrar and file this change, which put her in the old County Council District 5 instead of District 6 where she actually lived. Followed by her husband doing the same a week later.

Re:

quote:

---

elaborate conspiracy to defraud the Electorate of Hawaii County?

---

Again, you seem confused as to the nature of the alleged crime.
If she had participated in a conspiracy to defraud, that would be a more serious crime with heavier penalties, including real prison time. There was a case on Oahu where that happened with U of H Manoa students and a candidate who did go to prison.

Tiffany is not currently being investigated for that offense. The offense of voter fraud is still a felony, but it only involves the one voter.

Kathy

[Mendo]

Have to agree with Obie here. But the rules are not applied evenly - enemies of Moderator's enemies get much more leeway than deserved. That's his right.
But I would add to those still reading... give it up already. Other than the few still here, no one cares anymore. It's not an issue.

[missydog1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obie

I would think that Rob's rule about fair play should kick in.

Tiffany is no longer a politician.She lost.She is not here to defend herself.

---

She is not banned. She is a member. She can defend herself if she so wishes. No one is stopping her.

The voter fraud investigation is NOT about the 2014 election. Why is that so hard to figure out? The outcome of the 2014 election has no bearing on the case.
As to whether or not anyone cares, The Mexican asked for an update, kjlpahoa gave one, and then snorkle replied with a diss about the importance of a single vote -- and his comment fueled the current discussion. I didn't bump this topic, but his comment was offensive to me as a voter.

If voting is not a fit topic for a Politics forum, not sure what is.
Kathy

[snorkle]

I mentioned a single vote to demonstrate the absurdity that a savvy person would attempt to defraud the people in such a manner. Would a truly cunning felon go to the trouble of shuffling their residence to gain such an advantage?

If that's not the case, she should be accused of felony "unsavvyness", instead of fraud.

By the way, what is this "Straw Man" thing you mention? Is it some sort of Wizard of oz metaphor?

[missydog1]

Back to snorkle's remarks about an elaborate conspiracy, and the comments about motive, let's look again at the actual elements of this offense that is under investigation, instead of spouting off on your own impressions of the elements.

quote:

---

.[¤19-3.5 (3)] Voter fraud. The following persons shall be guilty of a class C felony:
(3) Any person who knowingly takes an oath in this title prescribed or authorized by law and wilfully makes any false statement of fact while under oath therein;

---

As you can see, the adverb "knowingly" modifies "takes an oath in this title prescribed or authorized by law."
Does a person who reads and speaks English knowingly take an oath when signing a voter registration affidavit in the State of Hawai'i?

Yes, on the face of it. it is an oath. Above the information box, it says, in Bold and CAPS as below:
I HEREBY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT:

Directly under the signature space, there is a black box that states:
WARNING: ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY FURNISHES FALSE INFORMATION MAY BE GUILTY OF A CLASS C FELONY, PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT AND/OR $10,000 FINE.

Second element:
"wilfully makes any false statement of fact while under oath therein"

HRS defines "wilfully" as the same as "knowingly." If the person fills out the form containing the above oath, and signs it, and writes a false statement of a fact on the Affidavit, and is aware the fact is false, that is all that is required to meet this element.

It is not an element that the person should even vote; the false swearing on the registration is the criminal act. Believable motive or intent to defraud or successful manipulation of an election are not legal elements to this offense. There is no element requiring this person to be a candidate for elective office. Any ordinary voter can commit this crime.

The "statement of fact" in question is the response to "Residence Address in Hawaii." On the instructions, it is clearly stated that a Business Address is Not Acceptable.

There is a separate statute of Hawaiian law that defines residency for voting purposes, HRS ¤11-13.
Summarized in this fact sheet.
http://hawaii.gov/elections/factsheets/html/fsvs512.htm

This whole discussion should be starting with whether or not it was a false fact that Tiffany and Jeff's residence address was at the shop address on Pahoa Village Road, in early November 2008.

Note that Tiffany filled out the same State of Hawai'i affidavit form on Feb. 18, 2008, 9 months prior, swearing it was true and correct that she now lived at Jeff's house, their family home, in Hawaiian Acres. Jeff Hunt was already registered at that address. What justification did they have for reregistering in another district?

According to the Hawai'i Supreme Court, October 2009, if a voter is properly registered in one district, it is necessary to "abandon" the prior residence completely in order to legally register in another district, because the intent to move must be to permanently relocate.

Does anyone who knows the family want to argue that in November 2008 they moved out of the Hawaiian Acres home into the surf shop, and lived there for the next five years, and then moved back to Hawaiian Acres in September of 2013?

In addition, Tiffany and Jeff had active two home exemptions as a married couple, which is not allowed when they live together -- one on the jointly owned property in Hilo, and one on Jeff Hunt's house in Hawaiian Acres, which he later removed in 2011. No exemption was ever filed on the address they listed as residence on their voter registration for those years.

Hawai'i Supreme Court cites HAR (Hawai'i Administrative Rules), which states it is a "rebuttable presumption" that the property on which a homeowner's exemption is placed is the residence for voting purposes.

You apologists can go on and on about motive and conspiracy and intent, but this question of fact as to their residence is the actual subject of the police investigation.

Ironically, if by chance they really had moved to Pahoa Village in 2008, and were legally registered there, then Tiffany would have needed to make a real permanent physical relocation to Hawaiian Acres in order to make her 2013 change of address valid.

In any case, Tiffany has already admitted in print that she didn't meet the residency requirement for District 4, that she was registered in the wrong district. That is why she had to turn down the position on the Windward Planning Commission that required her to be a resident of District 4. She lived in District 5 at the time she was nominated. There was no way she could accept and legally hold that position, why, because she DID NOT live in the small living quarters behind the shop front at Jeff Hunt Surfboards.

Kathy