On April 20, 2010, the Judiciary posted proposed amendments to SCR91 on their website.  In essence, they wanted to change the word "assist" to "cooperate" and add "requests for data and information regarding contested custody cases filed in family court."  This amendment would have killed SCR91.

Here is the link to the Judiciary's suggested amendments

Here is AngelGroup's response to this proposed amendment:

April 22, 2010

RE: Response to Judiciary's Written Testimony on SCR91

Dear Reps. Mizuno and Brower,

The Judiciary posted "WRITTEN TESTIMONY ONLY" on April 20, 2010, at approximately 5pm; stating "no position" to SCR91. Their last testimony, dated March 30, 2010 duly notes that they have been aware of the language of the bill for almost a month. To date, all their suggestions were respectfully included.

The following facts must not be overlooked:

1. The Judiciary is not a neophyte to the Legislative process and must be cognizant that any amendment at this point in time would essentially kill SCR91. Their amendment request could be perceived as a cloaked attempt to eliminate the investigation without the public appearance of opposition; thereby, avoiding any accountability that would result as an outcome of the investigation.
2. The Judiciary's only request for language change was almost 1-month ago, and this was included. They have had adequate time to submit proposed amendments.
3. According to the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, "cooperate" is synonymous with "assist", and visa versa.
4. Cooperate (v) is "to work together or jointly for common purpose or benefit...willingly and agreeably
5. Assist (v) is "to give support..aid...help"
6. I think it can be safely assumed that since the Judiciary states "no position", then this means they are clearly not opposed.
7. Extrapolating this one step further: Since the Judiciary is not opposed, then most likely they are willing to "give support...aid...help" and "work together or jointly for common purpose...willingly".
8. The additional language of "investigative committee's requests for data and information" in inclusive in "intent" of the original language.
9. Therefore, no amendment is necessary at this point in time.

The intent of SCR91 is crystal clear. The judiciary's involvement is also understood without effort. In light of the basic premise of SCR91, and the accompanying testimony since its introduction, we highly doubt that anyone would presume there's any desire for the Judiciary to investigate itself.

All above taken into consideration, I'm sure the cooperative Judiciary would understand the lack of inclusion of their last-minute suggestions, as SCR91 definitely provides a common benefit. Most assuredly, they do not desire the perception of hindering an investigation; wherein, the application of law in Family Court is being examined.

Thank you,

Add comment

Security code

CPS Survey

If you or someone you know has been involved with Hawaii's Department of Child Welfare Services (regardless of what island you're on), please take a survey HERE.

If you are not in Hawaii but would like to participate, take the survey here.

Latest Comments

  • Judicial Independence FAQs
    Привет, ты попал для сайт с лучшим бесплатным секс...
    17.08.19 14:02
    By Guest
    My developer is trying to persuade me to move to ....
    17.08.19 11:47
    By Guest
  • Obama’s Hawaii Connection
    I read this post fully on the topic of the differe...
    17.08.19 10:36
    By Guest
    The actual is not get greeddy and allpw a multitud...
    17.08.19 03:13
    By Guest
  • Judicial Independence FAQs
    Доброе утро. Решил семьёй поехать на экскурсию, по...
    17.08.19 02:25
    By Guest