Your #5 does not explain why the MCPD Chief and their Counsel said that HRS 841-3 was NOT in effect. You said it was in effect. So why did THEY say it was not? They are privy to the facts and have law deqrees. Are they just stupider than you? Are they part of a conspiracy to deprive the people of even the most rudimentary investiqation, which they acknowledqe includes the requirement of sworn witness statements?
See Post #231.
They are privy to the facts and have law deqrees. Are they just stupider than you?
Please. Statutes are enacted, and it is commonplace for various persons and parties to interpret those statutes differently. Certainly, how an agency which is the subject of a statute interprets it is significant. But it's not infrequently the case that an agency will go years adopting one view, until someone elects to challenge that and a court says the agency's interpretation is wrong. Divergence in interpretation does not necessarily imply one or the other person is relatively stupid.
Are they part of a conspiracy to deprive the people of even the most rudimentary investiqation, which they acknowledqe includes the requirement of sworn witness statements?
Hawaiian officials are elected and and/or employed by the People of the State of Hawaii. I'm not aware of anyone in Hawaii (or the family of Loretta Fuddy, wherever located) who is objecting how they are being denied their state officials' efforts in this matter. You can wrap yourself in the state flag of Hawaii, but it's a rather ill-fitting garment.