CV05-00030 - U S Dept of Justice, David C Farmer, Trustee vs. Harmon

NEW DISCOVERIES (09/12/08): Undisclosed relationships between David Farmer and Defendant’s witnesses Linda Lingle, Sherry Broder, Jon Van Dyke, others...

Check out Philippines recovers $3.5 million from Marcos | Honolulu Advertiser.

Friday, September 12, 2008

From: Hapa1234

To: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov, webmaster@ustaxcourt.gov, sf.nancy@mail.house.gov, Congress.org@capwiz.com, keith.i.kawachi@hawaii.gov, edo@spike.dor.state.co.us, insfraud@dcca.hawaii.gov, bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com, rroth@hawaii.edu

Philippines recovers $3.5 million from Marcos | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser

Dateline: Hawaii {Filipinas Kong Mahal - My Beloved Philippines} THE POLITICS OF DECEIT: BROKEN TRUST STYLE!

Ousted Philippine President Marcos, a close ASIAN PACIFIC political associate and friend to the Hawaii Delegates to Congress, relocates to live in LUXURY lifestyle in Sovereign Blue Hawaii back in February of 1986. Hawaii / New York socialite philanthropist, Doris Duke, later donates multi-millions of dollars for the defense of MISSING Philippine Government proceeds for Imelda Marcos in New York after the Philippine Dictator dies in Hawaii.

University of Hawaii William Richardson Law School Constitutional Professor, Jon Van Dyke, author of the stealth Public subsidized Akaka Bill, with Wife, Sherry Broder, the Chief Attorney for the nonprofit Office of Hawaiian Affairs was involved earlier with obtaining stolen Marcos Government proceeds for the members of the Philippine Community in Hawaii but with little restitution funds given back to the community?

What happened to the Marcos' MULTI-BILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS with LAUNDERED missing proceeds seized at the Honolulu International Airport by Government Agencies, back in 1986, under CIA Director William Casey's tenure involved with Iran-Contra scandals, later Chaired by Hawaii U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye under the Reagan - Bush Sr Administrations.... for future leveraged Political Capital spending for vested SPECIAL INTERESTS in Hawaii and Washington DC?

Aloha and Mabuhay!

Dismissed catbirds - Sovereign Asian Pacific Kabuki Theatre

- - -

September 12, 2008

Philippines recovers $3.5 million from Marcos

Associated Press

MANILA, Philippines -- The Philippine government received about 3.5 million from the estate of former President Ferdinand Marcos on Friday, bringing the total amount of improperly obtained wealth recovered from the dictator to $1.93 billion since he was ousted 22 years ago, an official said.

Nic Suarez, spokesman for the Presidential Commission on Good Government, the agency assigned to recover Marcos' alleged ill-gotten wealth, said another $425 million worth of assets, including real estate and stock market shares, have been recovered but not yet sold.

An estimated $4.26 billion in cash and assets is also being sought through litigation in an anti-graft court, Suarez said.

By law, the recovered Marcos' assets are used to fund the government's 20-year-old land reform program.

"We have been very faithful in remitting to the national treasury," Suarez said.

Marcos ruled the Philippines for 20 years until he was toppled in a "people power" revolt in 1986. He and his family fled into exile in Hawaii and he died three years later in Honolulu without admitting any wrongdoing.

The Marcos funds received Friday came from the sale of shares in a holding company allegedly used as a front to hide the late dictator's interests in the Manila Bulletin newspaper. The Supreme Court declared last November the shares were ill-gotten and the government was the real owner.

A report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime alleged last year that Marcos illegally amassed between $5 billion and $10 billion before he was ousted.

Marcos' wife, Imelda, and their three children returned to the Philippines in 1991. Imelda and their eldest daughter, Imee, have served as members of the House of Representatives. Their son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., is now a Congress member representing his home province of Ilocos Norte.

~ ~ ~

November 7, 2005

Bong Bong Marcos ordered
to appear in US court

Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed a sister state-province
agreement with Gov. Linda Lingle

By B.J. Reyes, Associated Press

HONOLULU: The son of former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos has been ordered to appear in federal court during a goodwill visit to Hawaii.

The order, issued Wednesday, allows Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos Jr. to travel to Hawaii despite contempt-of-court charges pending against him and his mother, former Filipino first lady Imelda Marcos. It bars him from speaking in public about pending litigation, however.

Judge Manuel Real ordered Marcos to appear in court Feb. 7. Marcos is due to meet with Filipino communities and sign a sister state-province agreement with Gov. Linda Lingle during a visit Feb. 1 to 8.

Real is overseeing the distribution of assets to thousands of Filipinos who won a $2 billion (euro1.5 billion) judgment against the Marcos estate in 1995, when a Honolulu jury found the late Philippine president responsible for executions, disappearances and torture during his 14-year reign under martial law. The initial award has grown to $3.7 billion (euro2.8 billion) with interest.

Imelda Marcos and her son also were found in contempt of court in 1995 after Real ruled they violated a court order freezing their assets; they’ve been subject to a fine of $100,000 (euro76,7100) a day since then.

In December, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a previous ruling freezing the former dictator’s assets that are being held in the Philippines and other banks around the world.

Ownership of the funds has been disputed since they were discovered in 1986, soon after Marcos was forced from power and fled to Hawaii. The deposits totaled about $356 million (euro273 million) but have almost doubled from interest and later investments...

Political Friendster

See also:

Vampires on Jupiter Island

www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Fuqua-Judith.htm

www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Fuqua-Ray.htm

www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Case-Daniel.htm

www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Case-Steve.htm

www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Case-Suzanne.htm

~ ~ ~

October 14, 2007

Hawaii ferry spent $175,000
on lobbying

By Rick Daysog, Honolulu Advertiser

Hawaii Superferry officials spent more than $175,000 over three years on lobbying and campaign contributions, including dozens of donations to Gov. Linda Lingle, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie and other key state legislators.

An Advertiser computer-assisted study of state and federal campaign records shows that the Superferry, its executives and several of its board members contributed more than $39,000 since 2004 to local lawmakers and members of Hawai'i's Congressional delegation.

A review of state and federal ethics filings also found that the Superferry spent more than $136,000 since 2004 to lobby state officials and the federal government.

"You're talking about an extremely large sum of money even by national standards," said Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert with Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group. "At the very least, they are trying to buy access, and at the worst they are trying to buy influence."

Superferry officials said there's no connection between the political donations and any legislative efforts pursued by the company.

The Lingle administration decided in February 2005 to exempt the Superferry project from an environmental assessment, which would take months to complete. That decision was reversed by the Hawai'i Supreme Court in August and now the ferry has been banned from operating until the assessment is finished.

Lingle and state legislators may convene a special session to rewrite the law and allow the ferry to operate while the assessment is conducted.

The 350-foot ferry was to carry passengers and vehicles between O'ahu, Maui and Kaua'i and began service in August before being shut down.

POLITICAL DONATIONS

The Advertiser's computer-assisted study examined contributions made to Lingle, Hawai'i's Congressional delegation and all 76 state legislators from 2004. The study found that Superferry executives and its board members made more than 30 political contributions between 2004 and 2007.

Here are the highlights:

Lingle's campaign received the most money from the Superferry and its officials, even though Lingle had directed campaign officials not to accept money from Superferry executives, said Miriam Hellreich, who served as the Lingle campaign's finance director from 2002 to 2006.

State campaign spending records show that Lingle's campaign received six donations totaling $12,000, including $6,000 in donations in October 2006 from Superferry Chairman and former Secretary of the U.S. Navy John Lehman and company Director Tig Krekel.

Hellreich said the Lingle campaign's policy was to refuse contributions from companies that were negotiating with the state for contracts. Lingle also told campaign staffers not to accept contributions from Superferry executives, Hellreich said.

Hellreich said staffers made "an error" by accepting the $6,000 in 2006 because negotiations between the state and Superferry were ongoing. Some campaign staffers were not aware of the internal policy against accepting money from Superferry officials, she said.

Hellreich also noted that the Lingle campaign returned about $10,000 in donations to Superferry officials in 2005 because the state and the company were still in negotiations. Hellreich said the campaign has no plans to return the 2006 donations.

"All the donations associated with people with the (Superferry) were within the law," Hellreich said.

Superferry executives and directors also contributed $9,200 to Abercrombie's campaign, including a cluster of June 2007 donations from Lehman, Krekel and Superferry President and CEO John Garibaldi.

Abercrombie said he receives support from a broad group of interests including environmental groups.

Federal Election Commission records show that the Sierra Club's political committee contributed more than $6,000 to Abercrombie's campaigns since 1998 and that the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund has donated nearly $1,000 to his campaigns since 1998....

Superferry executives made several contributions totaling $8,800 on Aug.25, 2006, and Sept. 11, 2006, to Akaka's campaign. Akaka spokesman Jesse Van Dyke said Akaka has taken no position on the issue since it doesn't involve Congressional action and is largely a state issue.

State House Speaker Calvin Say, a Superferry supporter, received $2,000 from the company on Jan. 24, 2006. That same day State. Rep. Joseph Souki received $1,000 from the Superferry. Say, D-20th (St. Louis Heights, Palolo Valley, Wilhelmina Rise), and Souki, D-8th (Wailuku, Waihe'e, Waiehu), were not available for comment....

~ ~ ~

April 19, 2007

U.N.: Pay Marcos' victims

A committee orders the Philippines to end a 21-year-old lawsuit

By Debra Barayuga

dbarayuga@starbulletin.com

A United Nations committee has said the Philippines is obligated to compensate human rights victims for the "unreasonable" delay in paying a $2 billion judgment issued in Honolulu against the estate of the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos.

On April 3 the Human Rights Committee also said the Philippines should provide "compensation and a prompt resolution of their case on the enforcement of the U.S. judgment" and "ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future."

In February 1995 a jury in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii awarded nearly $2 billion to the 9,539 victims or their heirs who were tortured, summarily executed or disappeared during Marcos' 20-year rule. That amount, with interest, is now closer to $4 billion, and not a penny has been paid.

"We're just ecstatic about the opinion," said Honolulu attorney Sherry Broder, one of five attorneys who have represented the human rights victims in ongoing litigation with the Marcoses and his estate for the past 21 years.

"This is another step toward collection, and it is a significant victory because justice delayed is justice denied," Broder said. "They were abused by Marcos and now by the Philippine court system. Affirmative action by the republic is required."

She said the decision is a "black mark" on the reputation of the Philippine courts.

The U.N. committee ordered Philippine officials to report back within 90 days of the decision to show how they have complied with it.

The victims filed suit against the Marcos estate in the Philippine courts nearly a decade ago in May 1997 to collect from Marcos assets in the Philippines. The Regional Trial Court in Makati dismissed the complaint, saying the victims had to pay a filing fee of $8.4 million, based on the $2 billion in dispute.

The Philippine Supreme Court took eight years before issuing its final decision, overturning the Makati court and finding that the filing fee should have only been $7.20.

The Human Rights Committee noted that the length of time the Philippine courts took to resolve such a matter of "minor complexity" was unreasonable and violated the victims' rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Robert Swift, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the republic has filed "frivolous court filings" in the United States to obstruct the victims' efforts to collect the award, including the court-ordered distribution of $35 million in Marcos assets.

The assets were recovered from a Merrill Lynch account in the name of Arelma, a Panamanian corporation, which was found by a federal judge to have served "no legitimate purpose than to hide the assets of Ferdinand E. Marcos."

That distribution -- which equates to a first payment of $2,000 to the victims and their heirs -- has been delayed because the republic appealed the order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

When the 9th Circuit refused to review the case en banc, the republic asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. If the Supreme Court refuses the case, the victims could begin receiving their first payments by July, Swift said.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/19/news/story03.html

~ ~ ~

July 17, 1988

U.S. SAID TO WEIGH INDICTING MARCOS

By PHILIP SHENON, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

The Justice Department is reviewing a draft of a proposed racketeering indictment of Ferdinand E. Marcos, the former President of the Philippines, but has not made a final decision on whether to bring criminal charges, according to department officials.

They said the indictment, prepared by the staff of the United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, accuses Mr. Marcos of racketeering and fraud involving allegations that he illegally acquired hundreds of millions of dollars in Manhattan real estate.

According to the officials, Justice Department lawyers in Washington are concerned that the indictment may be too broad, and that it may be improper to bring criminal charges against a foreign leader for crimes committed before he accepted asylum in the United States.

''The debate with Giuliani is going to go on for at least a few more days,'' a department official said. ''I don't know what we're going to present to the White House or when.'' Report Is Denied

The official denied a report in The Village Voice that the Justice Department had planned to ask President Reagan this week to approve an indictment of Mr. Marcos.

Officials said negotiations within the Justice Department over the indictment had been delayed while the head of the department's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Edward S. G. Dennis Jr., was on an official trip to the Soviet Union.

They said that they expected charges would eventually be filed against Mr. Marcos but that the indictment would be ''less broad'' than had been sought by Mr. Giuliani.

On Wednesday, the White House said that it had not received a recommendation from the Justice Department on the Marcos investigation, but that it wanted to review any proposed indictment. 'Make Our Views Known'

''This is a matter that has foreign policy implications,'' said Marlin Fitzwater, the White House spokesman. While denying that Mr. Reagan would have ''veto power'' over an indictment, Mr. Fitzwater said, ''We certainly would make our views known to the Justice Department.''

According to Administration officials, the White House is hoping to avoid the sort of embarrassment that occurred this year when the de facto ruler of Panama, Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, was indicted in the United States on drug smuggling charges.

Administration officials had hoped the indictment would help force General Noriega from power. Instead the general has remained in control, citing the indictment as evidence of American meddling in Panamanian affairs.

Mr. Giuliani, who has been investigating Mr. Marcos for more than a year, has reviewed a series of transactions involving several valuable buildings in Manhattan. Last year, a House subcommittee identified four New York buildings in which the Marcos family was said to have invested more than $300 million.

Purchase of Buildings

Justice Department officials have said in the past that they were looking into charges that Mr. Marcos and his wife, Imelda, purchased the buildings with money that was misappropriated in the Philippines and invested fraudulently in the United States.

The Manhattan grand jury is known to be investigating Mr. Marcos's activities both while he was President and in the two years since he was forced to flee from the Philippines and take up residence in Hawaii.

The White House has said that it is concerned an indictment might violate promises made to Mr. Marcos when he agreed to leave the Philippines.

''He has been given certain assurances by the United States in regard to that departure, and he also still has influence and contacts in that part of the world,'' Mr. Fitzwater said. ''So there are a number of foreign policy issues that need to be considered.'' No Comment by Lawyer

Mr. Marcos's lawyer in Washington, Richard A. Hibey, did not return phone calls for his comment. Mr. Hibey's secretary said he was out of town.

If an indictment is brought under Federal rackteering laws, prosecutors would probably have to establish that Mr. Marcos was part of a criminal enterprise involved in a pattern of criminal conduct spanning a number of years.

According to Justice Department officials, other potential targets of the Manhattan grand jury include Mrs. Marcos and Adnan Khashoggi, the Saudi businessman and arms dealer.

After Mr. Marcos fled the Philippines, the Government of President Corazon Aquino filed suit in New York to recover property from the former Philippine leader. In the civil proceeding, the Aquino Government charged that a Marcos associate backdated a deed to show falsely that ownership of some of the New York buildings had been assumed months earlier by Mr. Khashoggi. The Saudi has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

~ ~ ~

February 10, 2007

OHA challenge set back

A court rules against taxpayers trying to stop
state funding of pro-Hawaiian activities

By Mary Adamski, Star-Bulletin

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against a group of Hawaii taxpayers who say that the state unconstitutionally discriminates against non-Hawaiians by giving money to programs that only benefit Hawaiians.

The federal appeals court stopped short of dismissing the 2002 lawsuit but overturned its own earlier decision by finding the 14 taxpayers lack legal standing to challenge state funding of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The court sent the case back to U.S. District Court in Honolulu to determine if any of the plaintiffs are eligible "in any other capacity."

State and OHA attorneys said they expect the decision will put an end to the suit.

OHA attorney Sherry Broder said, "I consider this a victory for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and native Hawaiians. The court found in favor of native Hawaiians."

But H. William Burgess, lawyer for Earl Arakaki and 13 others, said "it's not the end."

Burgess appealed the case to the appellate court after U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway dismissed the lawsuit in 2004. In September 2005 a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit reinstated it, ruling that taxpayers could challenge the state for giving general fund money to OHA.

Last May, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a similar case appeared to doom the Hawaii taxpayers' challenge. The high court rejected a lawsuit by a group of Ohio taxpayers who challenged nearly $300 million in state and city tax breaks for DaimlerChrysler AG to build an auto plant in Toledo.

A month later, the Supreme Court instructed the appellate court to reconsider the Hawaii taxpayers' standing.

"Our case is different," Burgess said. "You have to have some specific injury to invoke court jurisdiction. Just because you pay taxes, you can't have a court decide on every state decision. In DaimlerChrysler the plaintiffs didn't suffer injury different from other Ohio taxpayers.

"In our case the plaintiffs have to pay taxes to support racial discrimination against themselves," Burgess said. "They suffer a specific pocketbook injury because not all taxpayers are eligible for the benefits. Taxpayers of Hawaiian ancestry don't suffer any injury because they are eligible for benefits."

"I still think ultimately we will prevail. This is just a bump in the road," he said.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett said, "We hoped the 9th Circuit would end the lawsuit. We're disappointed they continued it for further proceedings. We are pleased that on every substantive issue, the 9th Circuit ruled in our favor.

"We believe it's a short procedural delay. There's no possible basis on which plaintiffs can proceed with this lawsuit."

OHA Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona applauded the ruling but said it underscores the need for federal legislation that provides political recognition for native Hawaiians.

She called for passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, known as the Akaka Bill after its author, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka. "It will benefit not only native Hawaiians, but the entire state of Hawaii," she said in a press release.

OHA receives about 10 percent of its $28.5 million operating budget from the state.

The lawsuit originally also named the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Mollway dismissed the agency as a defendant, saying the program was mandated by federal law and that state taxpayers had no standing to challenge federal law.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/10/news/story02.html

~ ~ ~

November 30, 1998

Heptachlor study
will track isle students

The pineapple pesticide found
its way into the state's milk
supply 16 years ago

By Gregg K. Kakesako, Star-Bulletin

Some 200 teen-agers who were exposed to the pesticide heptachlor in tainted island milk in 1982 will be the subject of a yearlong study.

The $775,000 study, commissioned by the Hawaii Heptachlor Research and Education Fund, is the second epidemiological study on the long-term health effects of the pineapple pesticide that found its way into the state's milk supply 16 years ago.

Sherry Broder, attorney who handled the lawsuit, said the study is part of a $4 million settlement to claims made from the heptachlor exposure.

So far, Broder said nothing of concern has been discovered.

Besides studies, the settlement money has been used to fund research into the pesticide and to develop educational and teaching materials, Broder said.

"I would say at the present time nothing has been discovered that would cause a parent to become concerned with regard to heptachlor," Broder said.

Broder said the current study, which will be conducted by Dr. Dean Baker of the University of California at Irvine, will match the neurological behavior and academic achievements of 200 Oahu heptachlor babies against 100 students who were not born on Oahu and not exposed to the pineapple pesticide.

However, these 100 students will have lived on Oahu for the past 10 years and will have attended island schools.

"These (200) students are now 15 and 16 years old, and it will probably be the last opportunity we will have to test them," Broder said.

Baker did an earlier, $900,000 study where blood samples from heptachlor babies were tested.

"There were no flags raised from that study," she said.

Heptachlor made its way into the milk supply through pineapple tops that were fed to cows.

Thousands of gallons of milk had to be dumped in 1982 when it was discovered that heptachlor had made its way into the supply.

By then several hundreds of babies had been drinking it for months.

http://starbulletin.com/98/11/30/news/story4.html

~ ~ ~

November 5, 1999

Kunia farmers persist despite
heptachlor risk

Some have continued to grow
cucumbers despite warnings
that they pick up the pesticide

By Gary T. Kubota, Star-Bulletin

Some farmers have continued to grow cucumbers on former sugar cane land in Kunia in Central Oahu despite state warnings about the risk of heptachlor contamination.

State officials have warned farmers not to grow cucumbers on former pineapple and sugar cane land because the vegetable seems to absorb high levels of heptachlor.

State health officials say they have been unable to test for heptachlor on the farms, because of cutbacks in inspectors and the lack of regulation.

Officials say monitoring is difficult because farmers tend to rotate crops and change the location of where they raise the cucumbers.

"They're basically engaging in a cat-and-mouse game with the department due to the cutbacks, and the cat is missing a leg or two and the farmers believe the cat is not likely to catch any mice," said Gary Gill, state deputy director for environmental health.

Heptachlor was used as a pesticide to control soil insects in sugar cane in Hawaii from 1979 to 1984 and pineapple from 1952 to 1993.

Officials say that at high levels, heptachlor can cause central nervous system damage and has been classified as a probable cancer-causing chemical by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Gill said food testing has been reduced to a third of what it once was and the testing is generally done by taking samples of produce from wholesalers.

State officials say they have warned farmers about the risk of heptachlor in cucumbers grown on former pineapple and sugar land but don't have the authority to prevent them from growing any crops.

Officials detected heptachlor residue in cucumbers from Kunia in March 1998. The cucumbers were found to contain heptachlor at 26 parts per billion, above the 20 parts per billion federal limit for this type of vegetable.

Cucumbers on former pineapple land on Molokai were found to contain 34 parts per billion of heptachlor in April. The cucumbers were recalled and destroyed.

State officials say they can't shut down a farm, even if the soil contains heptachlor, because the crop may not have any detectable level of pesticide.

Robert Boesch, the state agricultural pesticide program manager, said that two to six small farms ranging in size from one to two acres were growing cucumbers in July, two months after the state warning.

Allan Izen, supervisor of the state food monitoring section, said as far as he knows, the risk of injury from heptachlor is small because the level of contamination has been low.

"In my opinion, no consumer of food needs to worry about this," Izen said. "As far as we know the potential for this to be a problem is very low. To be injured by heptachlor, you need long-term exposure."

Izen said inspectors conduct tests two days a month and gather 20 samples of produce on each day from a wholesaler.

http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/05/news/story4.html

~ ~ ~

July 19, 2007

A CHEMICAL LEGACY

The poison in our soil:
Effects on populations living around
land treated with heptachlor

By Alexandra Charles, The Molokai Times

Heptachlor, a toxic pesticide banned in the U.S. in 1988 and classified as a probable carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency, is likely to cause ill effects to human health if exposure to the chemical is in high doses and over a long period of time.

Studies of the pesticides' effects have been limited to laboratory rodents. When fed high levels of heptachlor over a long period of time, the animals developed liver cancer. Several experts say it is reasonable to assume similar effects will occur in humans who are exposed to a high dose of heptachlor by drinking water or milk, inhaling air, or touching soil contaminated by the chemical.

"Pesticides by their nature are dangerous," explained farmer Larry Jefts. "They are created to kill stuff or stop its growth."

He added, "They may not be dangerous to you and me but they may be to some weeds and bugs. We want to be really careful, to follow rules, and to rely on science and not science fiction (when using pesticides on agricultural land)."

Research confirms pineapple companies contaminated the soil when using heptachlor to kill pests on crops. Of major concern is what impact such a regular agricultural practice in Hawaii during the late 1950s and early 1980s has on people today.

A problem arises from land use changes because when new residences are built on agricultural land that was contaminated by pesticides, homeowners are not told about the potential harmful impact to their health.

For instance, after the Hawaiian Homes Act was established in 1920, the federal government put 200,000 acres of Hawaiian land aside for homesteading by Hawaiians with 50 percent or more native blood. In Hoolehua, agricultural lots were established. It is unlikely that homesteaders were informed about what was put into the soil when the land was part of pineapple plantations.

Residents have a variety of suspicions and concerns regarding pesticides like heptachlor. One resident, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the number of infant gravesite markers in the north side of the Maunaloa cemetery took him aback. He pointed out that Maunaloa was once a pineapple town and said it was chilling for him to see how many children did not live more than a few days. Currently, it is difficult to uncover the cause of death for those buried in the cemetery.

The heptachlor-milk connection

David Rodrigues, another Molokai resident who is an assistant veterinarian and was once a dairy farmer on Honolulu, said heptachlor led to the crippling of the dairy industry.

Rodrigues, who started dairy farming when he was 15, explained pineapple waste from the processing factories, called pine bran, used to be fed to cattle. The pineapple bran was sold to dairy farmers for a cheap price and it made milk sweet, he said.

It was later discovered that heptachlor gets into the body fat of cattle and into their milk. According to researchers Renu Gandhi and Suzanne Snedeker of the Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State, using heptachlor-contaminated pineapple leaves as feed for dairy cows in Hawaii resulted in "unusually high amounts of heptachlor epoxide to appear in cow's milk sold on the island of Oahu in the early 1980s. Higher levels of heptachlor epoxide were also found in the breast milk of women who lived on Oahu during this time."

As a result, the sale of the pineapple bran feed was discontinued in the early 1980s and dairy farmers were forced to find substitute feed or shut their farms down.

Rodrigues said he used to drink raw milk from tanks at the farm. Today, at age 51, he says his stomach has become intolerant to milk.

"I love milk but I suffer badly," he said.

Rodrigues said he also had a liver problem but never found out the cause. He said he has since changed his diet.

Rodrigues said he suspects long-term ingestion of milk byproducts, from cattle who were given heptachlor-contaminated feed, may weaken a person's liver but does not have any scientific proof.

"I think the State of Hawaii overlooked researching what damage heptachlor causes when consumed," he said.

Impact on humans inconclusive

Barbara Brooks, toxicologist for the Department of Health's Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response branch, said heptachlor is a residual contaminant. She said low levels of heptachlor have shown up in some food like fish, despite the commercial sale of the pesticide being banned for the past 20 years.

The current presence of the pesticide is not too concerning, Brooks assured, since the levels are still acceptable and the produce can be eaten.

According to Qing Li, professor of Environmental Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Hawaii, the concentration of heptachlor in Molokai soil is not that high.

"We had a hard time finding heptachlor in some soil samples we analyzed," he said. "In one field, we might detect heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide in one section but not in another."

A 1996 United Nations Environment Program and Food and Agriculture Organization report explains why control actions like banning and restricting heptachlor are reasonable: "control actions have been taken for various reasons including: heptachlor's toxicity to man, other mammals, birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms, as well as a concern for bio-accumulation, persistence and environmental contamination. Of particular concern is its demonstrated carcinogenic response in laboratory rodents and its potential impact on human health from widespread environmental contamination in the food chain."

A report by Dean Baker from the Environmental and Occupational Medicine Department of Community Medicine also paints a frightening picture of heptachlor: "at high doses, heptachlor can cause dizziness, muscle tremors and spasms, convulsions, and death (…) case reports in humans (suggest) that heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide may increase the risk of developing cancer."

In one case, a Molokai resident named Edward Alfonso Sr., who used to work for Del Monte applying chemicals to pineapple fields, developed hundreds of tiny tumor nodules in his chest cavity.

His daughter, Betty Lou Alfonso-Ignacio, said both she and her mother had to have tumors removed and that her sister Marianne died from colon and lung cancer at age 48. According to Alfonso-Ignacio, her family used to live carefree beside pineapple fields that were being treated with powerful insecticides.

In 2005, Alfonso-Ignacio observed a trend of cancer occurring in people who worked in the pineapple fields like her father. She contacted Erin Brokovich's law firm in Los Angeles with the intent of filing a class-action suit against the former plantation operators, but was told she needed more evidence and records proving a link between the pineapple work and illnesses. Today, Alfonso-Ignacio said her attorneys are still working on the case.

Several studies have looked into what effect heptachlor has on mice and rats. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, some studies show changes in the nervous system and immune function of young animals exposed to heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide during gestation and infancy.

Still, evidence of the chemical's effects on humans is not conclusive.

University of Hawaii Associate professor of chemistry, Jean-Pierre Michaud, explained scientific experiments and studies cannot clearly show cause-and-effect relationships, such as what exact effects heptachlor has on humans, because there are no constants with humans. For instance, when studying a sample of people, one must realize that traits like gender, age, diet, and lifestyle vary and all contribute to someone's level of health.

"The studies almost never give a complete picture," said Michaud.

Michaud also said people should not jump to conclusions based on studies done with heptachlor on laboratory rodents because rodents are given very high doses over a short term, whereas humans may have a low exposure to a pesticide over a long time.

"By overwhelming rodent bodies with a high amount of toxicity, all hell breaks lose," said Michaud.

He pointed out that an overdose of water or salt can be lethal and said, "it is all a question of dose."

How can people reduce the risk of exposure to heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide?

To minimize exposure to heptachlor, researchers recommend people avoid digging in the soil, or planting close to foundations of homes that were treated with heptachlor.

Also, children should be careful playing with dirt and hands should be washed thoroughly and before eating.

http://www.molokaitimes.com/articles/771916246.asp

~ ~ ~

Sherry Broder is expected to testify with regard to her business, professional, personal, and social relationships with Jon Van Dyke, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, Prudential Securities, American Arbitration Association, Daniel Akaka, Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., Jack Abramoff, Steven Guttman, Mary Lou Woo, Robert Kessner, James Duca, Robert Katz, Matt Tsukazaki, Nathan Aipa, Colleen Wong, Louanne Kam, Lyn Anzai, Earl Anzai, Susan Tius, County of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Haunani Apoliona, Faye Kurren, Nature Conservancy, Clayton Hee, Micah Kane, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, Oswald Stender, Robert K.U. Kihune, Gilbert Tam, Sandwich Isles Communications, Summit Communications, Carol Muranaka, Hawaii Public Television, Colbert Matsumoto, Jeffrey Watanabe, John Mullen Company, Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Judge Manuel Real, Rogelio Roxas, Lokelani Lindsey, William McCorriston, Mark Bennett, Jon Miho, Robert Klein, Judge Kevin Chang, Judge David Ezra, Judge Barry Kurren, University of Hawaii Board of Regents, University of Hawaii Foundation, H. William Burgess, John Goemans, George Ariyoshi, John Waihee, Benjamin Cayetano, Linda Lingle, Henry Peters, Judge Alan Kay, Judge Michael Seabright, John Marshall, Esq., James B. Nicholson, David C. Farmer, Gerard Jervis, Michael Nauyokas, Jesse Broder Van Dyke, Kenneth Conklin, Randy Roth, and others to be namedupon discovery.