Council plays waiting game as Ruggles won’t return
HILO — Faced with the curious case of a County Council member who refuses to vote or sponsor bills, county legislative leaders want more teeth added to local laws to require elected officials perform to stricter standards.
Start Free AccountGet access to 7 premium stories every month for FREE!
Already a Subscriber?Current print subscriber? Activate your complimentary Digital account.
Subscribe NowChoose a package that suits your preferences.
We live in a time when ANY position, no matter how ridiculous, will find backers like the Hawaiian Activists.
This is a cut and dried situation. If you had an employee that refused to come to work, would you continue to pay them, and hold their job open, when work needed to get done?
Good points. In the private sector, she’d already have been fired long ago.
I kind of imagine that she’s sitting at home with a smirk, proud that she was able to keep getting paid for not doing her job. Perhaps her big “FU” to the taxpayers of Hawaii Island brings her great delight? Not a person of very high integrity, IMHO.
We already have a bunch of workers that need to get things done and their not, we call them government employees and elected officials for the most part.
She has just mastered it, she is ahead of her time!
She is a loon supported by the loony. Two more months of this loon and then she’ll be a nobody except someone that scammed taxpayers. More greatness from Hawaii voters!
Perhaps Bernie’s running mate?
It’s time for Jen to move on.
We will probably find her swining from the shower rod!
Is that a threat?
What your just as stupid as she is! It’s what usually ends up happening to insane people and by the way she is!
You don’t live on our moku people like you are a good reason to enforce population control.
I’m ok with Ruggles creating her own reality, even if it is not supported by law.
But, by continuing to take her salary, that makes her an accessory to the so-called “crimes” that she claims is happening. You can’t have it both ways: the system is illegal (in your mind) and you continue to receive a salary from it.
Hypocrisy at it’s worst!
Any good lawyer would tell her to stop profiting from that which she thinks is illegal. That said, I don’t think she has very good council.
Bwahahahahahah…. The brainwashed American idiots and moron’s are at it again!!!
I’m guessing, they don’t want to answer her? They want to get rid of her?
I think she just saved us on medical bills, imagine not paying Federal taxes, Jones Jones Act disappearing.
Did you read that UN letter?
You might want to check it out.
I’ve ready the UN letter. It’s a simply memorandum and has not legal importance. Anyone can write a memorandum. It’s not a resolution. It’s not a law. It’s a simple memorandum written by one United Nations consultant. I encourage everyone to read it, as that would show it for truly what it is: a simple memo.
I read it….it says Bazooka on it!
WHT says “The public, meanwhile, seems divided.”
Statements like this is what gives the press a bad name. I don’t think there is much division this is just another example of a very small special interest group being very loud. Probably 90% are against Ruggles collecting a salary and doing nothing except making trouble.
Why do you think they call it dope?
When a council person asks for a LEGAL opinion, it is not a request for a casual personal opinion. She has the right to have her concerns alleviated. The council’s position is what? Like we’ve always done things? Unacceptable! Where is the lagal opinion from the man whose JOB it is to give them? It’s his job! It’s what my tax dollars pay him to do! Mr. Kamelamela, Your Job!
Mr Kamelamela is the Corporation Council. His opinion is therefore a legal opinion. It was a very short and curt response to Ruggles’ inquiry because the issue is cut and dried from a U.S., State and County legal perspective. There is nothing more to be said: there are no legal issues that would make Ruggles subject to “war crimes” How many times would she have hear “there is no issue” until she understands there is no issue?
There were 5 questions to be answered. Mr. Kamelamela wrote a 4 sentence personal opinion with no legal referencing. Personal opinion vs professional opinion. Ya, a professional opinion was requested in an official capacity. Questions that need answers.
You’re playing a little lose with your reading of Ruggles’ attorney’s letter.
Her attorney asks, “is she is not incurring criminal liability under
international humanitarian law and United States Federal law as a Council member for…” Then, he gives four (not five as you say) statements (not questions as you say) with each referencing the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention. So, her concerns deal exclusively (at least in her lawyer’s letter) with international law and it’s relationship to her work at the County Council.
Kamelamela answered, “we opine that you will not incur any criminal liability under state, federal and international law. See Article VI, Constitution of the United States of America (international law cannot violate federal law)”
Note: his answer is on Corporation Council letterhead and he signs it as “Corporation Council”.
He has answered her concerns: international law is Constitutionally prohibited from usurping federal law. So, his answer is complete to her statements and concerns. If the Constitution of the United States changes and Article VI is revoked, there might be a different story. Good luck with that, as we had 11,529 attempts to amendments the Constitution and only 27 amendments since 1789.
So, if you want to argue that international law usurps U.S. law, our Constitution prevents that. People who pursue that course of change will never prevail without a highly unlikely change in our Constitution.
That’s why Kamelamela’s answer was so succinct; her concerns, as stated in her lawyer’s letter, were with the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention, but they do no apply to her (previous) work as a County Council member in Hawaii, County.
BTW, she did the right thing–stopping her County Council work–if she believes she is committing “war crimes”. But, by continuing to take her salary, she would still be liable. It seems her morals stop when it comes to receiving taxpayer money.