Elections Commission Meeting - March 19, 2025

e e e e e Good morning, Commissioner Papalio. Can we test your audio and video, please?

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you, and I can see you as well.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to just PA my video because of the light.

Okay. When the when the meeting's in session, I think the Commissioners need to be viewed also.

Okay. All right. It's 10 o'clock. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Gazelle, could you read the could you take a roll call, please?

Yes. Uh, Chair Curtis?

Yes, here.

Commissioner Andreon?

Here.

Commissioner Kino?

Here.

Commissioner Kush?

Here.

Commissioner Kuada, are you in here? I don't think I saw him.

Okay, excused.

Commissioner McAdam?

I'm here.

Yes.

Commissioner A. Camp? I don't think I saw him either.

Excuse for now.

Commissioner Papalio?

Here.

And Commissioner Young is excused.

Okay. You have a quorum, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Uh, approval of the minutes from the January 15th meeting. Would entertain a motion to um approve the minutes of the January 15th meeting.

I move to amend the minutes, Chair. Let's it we can we can um have a motion to approve the and then we can amend them.

I make a motion to approve.

There's a second.

Second. Thank you. Now, Mr. Kushy, add amendments to the minutes.

Yes, I'd like to add to the list of attendees Scott Nago, Aon Shu, Lanner, and Ali10. Any questions?

There. A second to that addition?

Second. Thank you. Discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yeah. Yes, they're they're part of the intrical part of the meetings, and the record should show that they are present unless they are not present. Thank you. All approve all those in favor of the amended minutes or or the amendment to the minutes um can I get a roll call? Is any is anybody opposed to the amendments to the minutes?

No.

In that case, the amendment will stand approved.

Morning, Jeffrey.

Good morning. We just amended had a motion to amend the minutes to include several staff members to be included in the list of attendees that was approved. Back to the original motion of approval of the minutes as amended. Their discussion but I in a roll call to approve the minutes as amended of the January 15th meeting. Chair, before you go on, I had my hand raised.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Kino. What do you have to have to say?

I did submit something to staff, and I don't know if they made my addition to the minutes.

What what would that be?

I would entertain a motion to amend the minutes additionally. Anita, what would you offer?

Okay, hold on. Let me find my place where I made note. It was just the motion made by Commissioner Young at approximately 1:29 p.m. regarding the um creation of the bi-partisan task force.

Uhuh.

Uh, the motion didn't include or the minutes didn't include composed of members of the legislature and Election Commission. I just wanted that part added to the motion.

Okay. So that would be an amendment to the minutes to include the um to include that motion about the bipartisan task force.

Yeah.

Okay. Add composed of members of legislature and elections commission. Is there any more discussion on the amendment to the minutes? All those in favor say Aye.

Aye.

Oppose?

Abstentions?

Motion carried to amend the minut minutes to include the description of the bipartisan task force with the ledge to look at um legislation. Back to the original motion of approving the minutes as amended twice. There any more discussion? Can I have a roll call on the approval of the minutes as amended, please, Jazelle?

Yes. Can I first ask who seconded the um motion by Aino? Who wants to second that motion?

I do.

Okay. Ralph seconded it. Okay. Thank you. Um, Kate, roll call. Commissioner Andreon?

I.

Commissioner Kino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kashni?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada is um I think I believe he's trying to get in.

Okay. Um, Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner A. Camp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papalio?

Yes.

Commissioner Young is excuse. Chair Curtis?

Yes.

Okay. Now, Communications and correspondence. Would entertain a motion to receive for the record the communications and correspondence.

Yes, Chair. You you're moving to receip for the record.

I move that all commission approved motions must be followed. That's not part of the communication of Correspondence on the agenda.

Yes, it is, Chair. It's on the communication of Correspondence. I move. Do I have a second for this motion?

You don't ask for seconds.

I do. The agenda item is Communications and correspondence. I would entertain a motion to receive them for the record.

No, Chair, because we're we're not going to discuss them. So I move that all commission approved motions must be followed. Item is Communications and correspondence, and I would entertain a motion to receive for the record.

Are we going to be able to discuss these correspondents? Are you asking for us to just file them away and not discuss them today?

For the record, they become a matter of record. I'd like to discuss them. I'd like to discuss Commissioner Kush's correspondence at at the least. If we can separate these are for receiv received for the record, similar to the testimonies that we're going to receive in a few minutes.

No, Chair. There's status of motions on this, and we voted as a commission to have status of motions on all future meetings, and you're again you're bearing this for the 10th time. Status of motions, we voted to have that on, we need to discuss the status of motions, and that's what we're asking to do is in my letter on corresponden of communications. So I move that we discuss the status of motions.

As the agenda item is to receive these for the record, I'll include the status of motions in the agenda for the next meeting.

It's not on this agenda. I'll include status of motions on the agenda at the next meeting. So how do people get I'm I'm asking for a move to receive these communications for the record. It becomes a matter of public record. We can discuss it status of motions the next time, but your your letter was addressed to Jazelle asking for an agenda item. Jazelle doesn't take orders from you. She doesn't work for you. That's the initial text of your letter was to Jazelle. We've asked you many times not to address staff directly but to direct your correspondents to either the chair or Scott Nagle. Now this agenda item is to receive for the record. We can receive it and make it a matter of record as you discussed, but I'll put status of motions on the next agenda. I'm not going to discuss it at this agenda, but your letter specifically was um we ask you to to send letters to Scott Nago or myself. You're continuing to address staff as if they work for you. They don't work for you. That's what your letter said. We're not going to get into that letter today. We're going to do stat we can do I'll put status of motions on the next agenda and we can go over that right now. We're receiving these for the record, and I would entertain a motion to that effect.

So move.

M m.

Discussion?

Yes, Chair.

Yep. You're dictating what motions can be made. The agenda item is the topic, and the Commissioners make the Motions. So right now you're violating parliamentary law by dictating what motions that we can make, and I just want that for the record and in the meeting minutes that the chair is not allowing any motions to be made this on an agenda topic. I would object to that. The the chair is bound by the powers of the commission. We we don't have the ability to expand our powers, and as the the chair stated, we don't have the ability to direct people to do things who we are not under our Collective control. So the the motion is misplaced. I think it it's something that we should move on from as quickly as possible. So the motion to follow the Motions that we approve is misplaced. You're telling me that we should not um follow the Motions that we approve in the meetings, and that's all I'm asking. I'm I'm saying the Motions that we approve should be followed. It doesn't and you're telling me that's not the law. Is the law if we have to follow the Motions we have to follow them. No vote that we have to follow them is going to change that. Okay. We're not following the Motions that we make as a commission. The commission acts by majority vote. How do we have the chair do that controlling the agenda if if we're not following the emotions? No motion that we make now is going to change that. It's do you want to receive these for the record or not?

We want to receive and discuss.

I amend the motion to discuss the items on the written Communications.

Second.

Discussion on the amendment to discuss the te text of the correspondence and communication that we've received.

Yes, Chair. People are writing in letters to get their what is the protocol for somebody to write in the letter to have that topic discussed on the commission? That's that's what people want to know. So we're bearing their letters that they're sending in, and we're not discussing it. So what is the proper protocol? Call so that somebody who spends time to write the commission can have their item discussed. What is the proper protocol to bring a motion on the floor according to the agenda in a regular meeting? That's the protocol. Right now we're receiving them for the record. That's Howes how do we there's an amendment on the floor for to amend and include discussion of these. Is there any other discussion on that Amendment?

Sher, if I me speak, I I'd ask for a roll call of the amendment to the motion.

Anita's asking to speak. Chair.

Anita, Chair, in the past I have requested followup on on um motions we've made, and that has you have um not put that on the agenda every time we meet. That part particular request is not put on the agenda, and I would like to know why. You still don't acknowledge I'm not the only one or Commissioner Kush is not the only one who has requested status on um motions we've made and and uh testimonies that have presented been presented. So why are we not placing this on the agenda? Follow up and um I I'm bewildered that will this statement that will be the lead item on the next agenda. Status of motions and we can go over that in detail at the next meeting. I'll put it on the agenda. It's not on today's agenda, but Sher, if I may speak again, this should be on every agenda. Status and discussion should be on every agenda.

I would entertain a roll call on the amendment to the motion to receive for the record the cores commun communication that would add discussion of each of those items as I understand the motion.

Okay. A roll call on this on the amendment. Okay. Commissioner Andreon?

Yes.

Commissioner Kino?

Yes.

Commissioner Kishni?

Yes.

Commissioner Kuada? Um, Mr. Chairman, with your Indulgence, I'd like the the record to reflect my attendance. So uh at 10:07 that's when I was able to enter the meeting, and my vote is no. Thank you.

Commissioner McAdam? Sorry, what was that?

Commissioner Adam, I'm sorry, that was no.

Okay. Commissioner Amp?

No.

Commissioner Papalio?

Yes.

Commissioner Young's excused. Chair Curtis?

No.

So the original motion is to receive this communication and correspondence for the record. I would entertain uh I would ask for a roll call vote on receiving for the record the communications of Correspondence listed. Okay. Commissioner Andreon?

No.

Commissioner Aino?

No.

Commissioner K Kush?

No.

Commissioner Kuada?

Yes.

Commissioner McAdam?

Yes.

Commissioner AER Camp?

Yes.

Commissioner Papalio?

No.

M Young is excused. Chair Curtis?

Yes.

Four four. So that motion doesn't carry. So we won't receive these for the record. Uh, matters of public record are The Sunshine Law complaints, and those are pending OIP response. Uh, Records request request request refer to OIP. We don't handle records requests.

Point of information, Chair.

I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am. Did you just say when we took this last vote um that they would not be brought into the record?

That's correct. You we did not vote in favor R of received for the record. That was a four four vote.

That's right. Takes five to pass a a motion.

Okay. So the motion prior on the amendment that died also pass because it was also four four V.

That's right. That that died as well as this receip for the record. So these these items are not going to be received for the record anymore. So OIP is referred to OIP. The records request we don't do records request. That's referred to OIP. Number seven. I I would I would open the public comments on I would open the public comments now unless the commission has some other preference.

Yes, Chair. We I there's a bunch of things to discuss. So we can let the public go first, and then we'll have discussions by each of the Commissioners. Yeah. We'll start with art we'll discuss starting Artic item seven on the agenda and in the meantime, I'd entertain the uh comments from the public. Could you coordinate that, Jazelle? Also, if if you are talking, I would ask you to um show your Visual and your audio. You have to accept the permission to turn them on before you can talk. You have to act if you you're going to be speaking to turn your video and audio on, and I would ask your name and what agenda item you're going to be discussing. Deselle, could you coordinate that, please?

Yes. If you would like to testify, please click raise hand under reactions on Zoom. If you are joining us by phone, press star9. When recognized, please unmute your microphone before speaking. You may also turn on your video at this time. For the record, please state your first and last name and the items you will be testifying on to ensure that we will have sufficient time to hear all testimony. Each testifier will have 3 minutes to testify. Once your time has expired, you'll be asked to conclude your remarks. The first testifier is Andy Crossland, followed by Jamie deweer. Mr. Crossland, unmute and un and video, please.

You talking about hello? H commission. You can hear me?

Yep.

Thank you. Okay. So I'm Andy Crossland, and I'm going to be testifying today on agenda item 8. So basically what this is is these are submissions of official complaints per the Hawai'i Revised Statutes to investigate certain issues that we've been discussing for not months for years at this Hawai'i elections commission. Now these are official offal complaints. These aren't just correspondence and Communications. These are official complaints, and that was a topic that was brought up during the last commission meeting where essentially it was it was mentioned to the testifiers and the rest of the commission that there needed to be formal complaints filed in order to start an investigation. Now there was also some discussion that the Hawai'i Revised Statutes also allow the commission to undertake investigations on their own motion. Uh, there was some disagreement on that, but it's very clear in the Hai statutes, but what I want to make very clear here is that we have official complaints that are requesting investigation into things like chain of custody. They're requesting investigations into things like the ballot envelope Counts from the counties not matching the ballot Counts from the state. Things like this, and so what I would like to see happen today is I would like to see this commission make motions to actually investigate these issues. Now making a motion and voting in favor of the motion to investigate these issues doesn't mean that you're saying that these investigations are going to result in a conclusion that there was any issues. What it is is that you're voting to investigate whether there is an issue or not, and there should be no problem with voting to investigate something. I mean, if our elections are completely fair and transparent and secure, then there should be absolutely no problem with investigating these things to make sure that they are fair and transparent and secure. Like it should be very easy to prove that our elections are very fair, secure, and transparent if that is actually the case, and that should be no problem. And so I just find it interesting that this Commission in the years that I've been involved in providing testimony and observing this commission has not once done any investigations whatsoever into anything any of these concerns that have been brought up, but now we have official complaints, and so I'd like to see these things actually be investigated. I'd also like to note in some of the meeting materials that I think that there's been some uh some misunderstanding on some of what Scott Nago has responded to Ralph Kushy and others where it seems like there's some kind of a conflation going on between signature verification and chain of custody, and you know I I think that we need to understand that those are not the same thing. Chain of custody is making sure that that the ballots are accounted for at each step in the process, and so just to conclude here what what I want to see today is I want to see us uh the the commission to take a vote to investigate these issues of the county and State numbers not matching and also the chain of custody issues. That's it. I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Crossland. Okay. The next testifier is Jamie deweer, followed by Mark Crumbley.

Aloha, Chair and Commissioners. Jamie deweer. Uh, there are two agenda items that I'd like to address, starting with agenda item seven, which are the results of the audit of District 37. Um, as some of you on this call may know, that is the district I ran for office in in 2022, and since we're talking about you know correspondences, um I I'd also like to add in there the significance of timeline. So uh a quick review. I submitted my request for the audit in November of 2022, following the election about uh a week after the election, and it wasn't until April of 2024, almost two years later, that the commission agreed to do the audit, and I'm thankful to you, Chair Curtis and and the Commissioners for voting to approve that audit. Um, and then the audit didn't occur until 2025, you know because we had to do the election. That's what I was told. So it seems like to me anyway and to to several people that it just kept getting dragged out, and I would not want this to happen to any other future candidates um when they ask for an audit. At least give a response. I receiv received no written acknowledgement of my request. I sent the letter certified mail. I did I received the confirmation uh postcard saying it was received and signed off on. I didn't receive any email mail or phone call acknowledging that you know that was even recognized at the state legislature when a bill came up in 2023, and even the Judiciary chair asked why it took so long for the office of elections to even acknow knowledge my request. So those are some of the things that you know I have concerns about, and then when the audit was conducted, um I do accept and understand why I could not be present, and I was also given the option, which I'm grateful for, to identify official election observers um on my behalf, and those people did participate, but you know this is just a a you know I have concerns about the validity um and the security of the ballots for that length of time. So those are the things that I want the Commissioners to really take note of because you are going to receive future requests for an audit from candidates, and candidates you know the communication process from the office of elections needs to be better. So that's item number seven. Um, and and I see my time on the clock, but I I would like to request additional time because there's two items right. So the next item is uh item number eight. Um, let's see on my correspondence. This is regarding chain of custody. Now I'm speaking in the capacity of an official election Observer for this past election, both the primary and the general election. I served as an election Observer. It was a great experience, but um I did notice inconsistencies with regards to um the communication between the signature verification Center, which is run by the county. I believe it's the same in all counties, and then uh the communication between uh the state counting Center, which is was posted at the state capital, and that's where I served primarily as an election Observer, but I was asked to go and observe uh the transportation of the ballots from the signature verification Center to the state counting Center. Um, as an observer, we were asked to sign off on a chain of custody form, and on the form it said the number of mail trays observed in the locked cages, and so I asked the question at the signature verification Center how many ballots are in the mail trays, and they said oh no, Jamie, all you have to do is acknowledge the number of trays, and I noticed in each tray there were various amounts. You could tell whether they were tightly packed or Loosely packed, and so when I asked for the number of ballots, um they said they couldn't give that. They didn't have that number. It takes too much time to count the the ballot envelopes. Um, I also observed on another occasion at the signature verification Center actual ballot boxes uh that had the uh wire locks on them with the code numbers coming in from dropboxes around the island, and I saw them you know cut open the box, the lock, they poured the ballot envelopes out on the table, and they were just kind of sorting them, but I asked if they counted them when they picked it up at the dropboxes out in the community and then verified the count when they got to the signature verification Center, and they told me oh no, that takes too long. The all of these you knowk Jamie information, it it's really important to note um these inconsistencies. So we don't really know the true Count of ballot envelopes that are being you know moved from one point to the next point to the final point. So I I I implore the Commissioners to really take a look at the chain of custody um and just you know it's just very inconsistent and concerning to us as voters. Thank you.

Jamie. Thank you. The next testifier is Mark Crumley, followed by Tara Roas. And could you put a timer on this, please?

Yes. Three minutes. Thank you.

Mark Crumley. Crumbley, you're going to be ejected forever. Next speaker. The next testifier is Tara Roas, followed by Carl Dicks.

Tara Roas. What items are you speaking on?

Okay. Aloha. Aloha. Uh, I am speaking on one sec. Just in general, the the complaints and the complaints, the chain of commands, and so I'm going to put it all together. Yeah. So as a member of Latara Roas, as a member of the public, you know um yes, Miss Roas. Wait one sec. So I just want to say that you know if if you as the board, your sole purpose and your core purpose is to serve the people, and yet it actively you all actively, you know, not you all, you as chair, and we've noticed that the board members who who support you, you know, when yet when we as a public, you know, we're providing the input, and we notice that it is yourself as well as the board members who support you in silencing the board members who do listen to the public, yeah, and who advocate for transparency, then this board is failing its essential responsibility, and such conduct is undemocratic, unethical, and unlawful, and so immediate, you know, intervention is necessary to hold hold yall as as you the chair accountable to restore integrity and legitimacy to this public this public institution and this public process. So again, it just seems that all the meetings we attend, this continued unlawfulness is allowed to occur. You see on the agenda there are formal complaints filed, and yet you see yourself and the board members who are supporting this just just going along with what you're say when you clearly know that the public wants to he hear the discussion. They want to have their voices heard. They took the time to file these complaints, and yet you blatantly are shutting down the voice of the people for whom you all work. So it's yourself, I'm going to say this, Chair, and the board members would just automatically go along with what you say, going against again the few that are speaking and listening on behalf of the people. So again, there needs to be an independent uh review. There needs to be restored public trust, and this is literally wrongdoing, misuse, abuse of authority, and just undemocratic and violations of fundamental Democratic principles in in addition to parliamentary law, and our voices are being shut down. So this needs to be changed. An investigation needs to happen, and you all really need to recuse yourself if you're just going to continuously shut out the voices of the people. Mahalo.

Thank you, Miss Roas. The next testifier is Carl Dicks, followed by Shelby Billionaire. You gotta you gotta approve your mic, Carl.

There you go.

Aloha. Aloha. I'd like to address the I guess there's F finally found some paperwork I guess, and they call that VBC uh vote Ballot or vote um ballot containers or whatever it is. Um, playing in my background is a video, a movie, actual evidence. The VBCs are actually plastic B bins from Costco. That's pretty secure, and they're Sign Sealed and certified. I mean, that's a joke, a blatant joke. The guy there, see him in the background, he he's going and he's getting Lids to the and it's only one guy. This is actual footage. Plastic bins and he takes out and oh, that last one there that was in the con in the box drop box with a lid on it. How did the ballots get in that plastic bin with a lid on the box already? Pretty that's magic trick, isn't it? This is actual evidence and footage that nobody this is from 2020. Nobody will look at it. Our elections are a complete fraud, complete fraud. I have a case in the United States Supreme Court because nobody in this state in our court corrupt court system will listen or look, and I've filed formal complaints numerous times with the election commission. I have all kinds of evidence, and it's the gigs up, guys. The gig is up. Our our elections are a complete sham. With that, I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Dicks. The next testifier is Shelby Billionaire, followed by Anarie Hamilton.

Aloha, Myako. Can you hear me?

Yep.

Great. Wonderful. Thank you, everybody. I'm talking about agenda number eight, the chain of custody. Obviously, I'm not going to repeat too much uh what's been said with Tara and Ralph going repeat the bush, but I do want to report because I am at the state craft for following these bills, the agendas. I do see Scott Nago and people in the office fighting for the bills. It's not quite what you guys said in the last meetings understand about the voting the methods. They're not putting in the bills like to count the ballots by paper. That makes the most sense to me. I'm from W. I keep it real, common sense, but I can tell Tara's frustration, my frustration because we're trying to push bills together. We got zero pass from our representative senators in why not, and then when I ran the Republican numbers from entire GOP that eight bills go through crossover, but only a two are surviving, one from Kurt Flla and one from Brenton Ava. That's only two Republican bills, entire 3,000 bills. That doesn't look good for you guys on a Democratic party who's controlling everything because when we go to the office elections commission and we go to the pro City, we can tell who appointed who. Clar Adams, you're appointed by the president of the Senate, just like Peter Young who appointed Jeffrey Uster Camp, Speaker of the House. Same thing goes for Jeffrey Kuada. You guys were appointed by the same people who control the Democratic party. Obviously, if to you're controlled by the bosses, and we're not getting our bills through. Even my friend Spongebob Rep Kong can't get his bills through. He got zero pass. Breton NAA zero. You know, one bill pass. Samantha D Court zero pass. David Alo zero. Elijah Perck zero. Diamond Garcia zero. Shimizu zero. Jee Ward zero. This isn't looking good for how you guys treat the constituents, how you treat the laws, and I'm definitely going to call Tulsy Gabbard's Dad, Mike Gabb, and complain to Cash Patel, DNI, and we're on YouTube live now. We can't chat with you here, but we can chat live on YouTube here, so all of our Patriots out here, please go on our YouTube channel to watch the same thing, and we can chat there, so we can talk about real stuff, so we can get real stuff done because they already broke the US Constitution Article 2 Section 4 every primary ballot when you're forced to choose a party because of the shenanigans they pulled on you, me, and everybody. I'm starting a brand new political party called the Ohana Unity party. I'm not Democrat. I'm not Republican, but we got to throw off these donkeys and change the system. So T to all of you and all of you guys watching. I'm going to send this on.

X to General Flynn and everybody else: We need to rally more of our troops to get the truth, so we can get our younger generators in office to change the laws, for to get Manpower, resources, and Finance to help the better future for all of you. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next testifier is Anarie Hamilton, followed by Doug.

Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Um, today I want to talk about chain of custody. I also want to do a shout-out for Tina Peters. Tina Peters is the election clerk from Mesa, Colorado, and she's in jail for nine years for exposing election fraud. So Google her name, learn her story. This is a war we're in, and that's what they do to people that uncover fraud. Excuse me. So I want to—I want to talk about chain of custody. So what would be a good way to introduce additional ballots into the count if you wanted to cheat in an election? You would look for a break or a weak spot in the chain of custody to introduce those fraudulent, fake ballots. We know that every mail-in ballot collected had an envelope with a verified signature on them. So if ballot counts cannot be tied to envelope counts, or if there are more ballots than envelopes, you might have fraud. Ballots could be getting inserted. The bottom line is: something doesn't add up. If you think this is not happening in Hawaii, think again. The scenario actually happened in District 17 of Kauai during the 2024 election when more than 30 voters in District S on the island of Kauai identified to the state Supreme Court that the state reported counting more ballots than the county had actually collected, and the difference was enough to swing the council race. How did these people know the state reported more ballots? Because they counted the envelopes and compared them against the ballots; the numbers did not match. This weak spot is a glaring admission that Hawaii's elections are not secure, and we need to do better. And it actually got worse when it went to the Supreme Court. The court actually determined that the data obtained during the collection of ballot envelopes from dropboxes—that was a smoking gun—and from the Postal Service were not admissible because the county had put a disclaimer on the collection forms. How convenient. This disclaimer stated that the collection process only counts envelopes, not ballots, and the envelope count is used to allocate Manpower only. Isn't that lovely? That's a convenient weak spot, an obvious break in chain of custody to introduce fraud. They want you to not know this. This happened in Hawaii under the watch of this Election Commission in the last election. Now I ask the Commissioners: When are you going to do your job, which is investigating whether or not election laws and processes are sufficient to eliminate a break or weak spot in Hawaii's chain of custody law that would allow fraud like this to happen? When are you going to start fighting for the people and quit protecting the weak, perverse, and twisted system that I just laid out—that is occurring right now—that allows fraud to happen in our votes and erodes our trust in you and elections, the officials that are supposed to be securing our elections, and certainly the Judiciary? When are you going to investigate these glaring breaks in chain of custody of Hawaii's elections, and when are you going to ensure that chain of custody—which is foundational to our elections—is sound and enforceable, and our elections are fair, honest, and accurate?

When I yelled, "Thanks."

Miss Hamilton, the next testifier is Doug Pasnik, followed by Nolan Chang.

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you, Commission. My name is Doug Pasnik. I'm a retired Colonel. I'd like to testify on uh, three—or sorry, excuse me, two agenda items. The first one is agenda item number three, which you all just discussed, and I'd like to reference your Elections Commission meeting summary from June 19th, 2024. I just pulled it up online. During your meeting, Commissioner Kushy made a motion to have the status of motions put on future agendas. I'm reading from the meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Akino and carried, noting the excused absence of Commissioner Kuchi and Commissioner Kada. Commissioners Andrean, Akino, Kushy, McAdam, Papalio, Liu, Takanaka, and you, Mr. Curtis, voted yes to including status of motions on future meeting agendas. No one voted no on that motion. The second item I'd like to testify on is agenda item number nine, which is a formal complaint that I submitted in accordance with your rules, HRS 317-05 and 6, in August. You may recall I petitioned the commission that the 2024 general election be certified in accordance with HRS 11-1155, which requires a reconciliation of all logs, records, and audits. You considered a motion to comply with that statute, but Commissioners Kada, McAdam, Oser Camp, and you, Mr. Curtis, voted no, so that motion failed. Six months later, Chief Election Officer Nag's March 17th report exposes the same issues through his contradictions. Nag's report admits to procedural errors and ballot accountability in Maui. They misplaced transfer forms, and he blamed it on human error. Counties used inconsistent documentation; some tracked envelope counts and others didn't. Of the forms in Mr. Ngo's report, none are from the Statewide Voter Registration System that he claims is the quote "form for the purpose of tracking ballots." Now, Mr. Nago claims that these layered safeguards have merit and credibility, but how credible is a process where there are no records as required by the law? HRS 11-1155 demands a full reconciliation before certification, and Mr. Nago's report shows discrepancies in Honolulu. He admits that they merely documented collections without counting ballots. In Kauai, they had transfer records for unsealed trays, and Maui has no records at all. In Mr. Nago's over/under report, he lists overages but offers no reconciliation, just a vague nod to quote "invalid conditions," and he touts transparency, yet these gaps violate HRS 11-1155's clear mandate. Mr. Nago praises official observers as a check, but nearly 28% of the forms he provided in his report lack the required official observer signatures, and he calls this human error and not systemic. You may recall from the 2022 election that of 3,310 sealing and unsealing forms, 46% were uncertified. Now, Mr. Tago—Mr. Nago—claimed that there are 332 records that provide all of the accountability that's needed. Where did 3,000 forms from the 2022 election go? Mr. Nago dismisses patterns of failure while leaning on safeguards that he doesn't enforce. That's not oversight; it's neglect of HRS 11-2 and his duties to supervise elections lawfully. Last August, the commission had a chance to enforce 11-1155, and you didn't. Mr. Nago acknowledged failures in his report but asks us to accept the outcome, shifting blame to courts via HRS 11-1172, rather than ensuring compliance himself. He brags of checks and balances between county and state, but inconsistent county practices like Kauai's unsealed trays prove it's a liability and it's not a strength when he can't standardize or document it per the requirements of HAR 317-74-53. These are your records, Mr. Nago. The facts speak: missing certifications, incomplete records, no full reconciliation—all against the law. And worse, Mr. Nago signed certificates of election before certification, defying HRS 11-1156 provisions, which is another hypocrisy that my August petition demanded you investigate per rules for 11-175, but the commission's ignored that as well. This commission can still act, investigate these gaps, enforce HRS 11-1155, and honor my current petition to probe Mr. Nago's premature certifications. I just listened to Mr. Oser Camp say that the law is the law, but yet we've documented violations of the law that this commission just continues to ignore. If the commission remains silent, it's just a sham, and you're rubber-stamping the lawlessness, and Mr. Nago's contradictions pile up in your own records. This is all your records. I yield. Thank you.

The next testifier is Nolan Chang, followed by Jen Hunt.

Aloha Election Commission Board. I'm Mr. Chang. My name is Nolan Chang. I'm the Hawaii Republican Party National Committeeman. Mahalo for allowing me time to testify today. I'd like to focus on chain of custody first. Chain of custody and signature verification are not the same process. Uh, as someone mentioned before—I think it was Andy Crossin—chain of custody tracks ballots, and signature verification ensures ballots were cast by eligible voters. And so I see a variety of problems in the current process: one, the Office of Elections does not require counties to provide chain of custody documentation, which is required by law; two, there is a number—there is no independent verification of the actual inventory of ballots received; persons counted, and you have to ask yourself why is that; three, the poll watchers, ballot watchers, all voluntary observers are kept out of this loop in the process; another problem: the state ensures that the number of ballots received from the counties matches the state's electronic records. The problem is there's no check and balance; five, ballot envelopes are signature verified by the counties, but the state reports the vote count through a different system. I find that very peculiar; six, audits are conducted using ballot images, not the physical paper ballots, and you heard people identify this problem earlier. Valid images can be duplicated, meaning there is no true physical inventory of the ballots at any time. And so I humbly recommend the following solutions: one, follow the Office of Election rules, of which a number have been broken; two, we want a physical inventory of all ballot envelopes; three, official observers should be allowed to witness signature verification; four, observers should be allowed to count the number of actual envelopes in trays, not counting the number of trays only. It's ridiculous, and I think all of you know that; five, observers should be able to verify the accuracy of ballots counted by machines at the state counting center; six, conduct audits where the physical paper ballots are counted; and finally, I highly recommend that all Election Commission board members physically watch the complete ballot tabulation system themselves, have Mr. Nago train all of you, physically show you the whole process and how it really works, and maybe then we have a different perspective and understand why so many of us are adamant about the current electoral system and that it really needs—and why it really needs to be overhauled. Mahalo for your time. Thank you.

The next testifier is Jen Hunt, followed by painkillers.

Hi, can you guys hear me?

Hello. Yes.

Yes. Okay, thank you. Hi. Um, I noticed on the agenda that um, the records request referred to OIP, and that was just completely overlooked. That was my official complaint that was put in that category for some weird reason, but I included information about the lengths I went to to get myself heard by this commission. I started with communications and correspondences, but those are just passed over each—oh, that Election Commission meeting. So then I made a formal complaint, and now it's put into records request, and it was just kind of bypassed. So if everyone would understand that the February 19th, uh, item number seven is actually a formal complaint about chain of custody. I went through uh, the—the uh—process of trying to get those records to see what the counts were, and I was ignored pretty much by the Maui County uh, clerk's office. I asked about the official observers along picking up ballots—um, none—there are no official observers. The law that states that there has to be official observers whenever a um, ballots are handled is being completely ignored. So I just wanted to go over the fact that um, I think Oser Camp—Mr. Oser Camp—has said this a couple of times that nobody's complaining, so you know, you—it's—everything should be okay because no one's complaining. Well, that's because you guys aren't looking at the communications clearly. A lot of people are having an issue with how the elections are being run, and um, the chain of custody numbers that should be very easy to track. Every time somebody picks up ballots at a Dropbox, they should be counting them and making sure that's the same amount that are—and signing off on it. Those should be clear, easy, trackable records, yet they're—they're nowhere to be found in Maui County. And so, you know, trying to get the Election Commission to understand this seems to be a problem, and nobody seems to care that those are necessary, that those are part of the law. Those are the laws that are being violated here. The law that's being violated also is the law that says there must be official observers—not workers, but actual observers—when any ballots are being handled. The person that drops their—in the Dropbox or into the mail assumes that that is going to—that that ballot is going to be secure, and if there are no two parties watching this, then—then how can we be sure that that those ballots that people drop off aren't being thrown away and [replaced with] a new ballot of the liking of the people that want to stay in power? There's no way to be secure and knowing that that—that those are the votes that people are actually casting. So I don't have anything else to say other than I'm completely disgusted with all of you for just saying no whenever there's any question about following the motions that were already passed, for doing any kind of investigation. The ones—you know who you are—are just saying no without even giving any thought to it. It just makes you all look very corrupt. Thank you. I don't—

Thank you, Miss Hunt. The next testifier is P. Killers, followed by Kina.

What's your voting name?

Painkillers. And what item are you talking about? You need to turn your—there you go. There you go. Okay. So my name is Key Pton. Um, I've been on here multiple times, but so I am—I can't—I mean, we keep on repeating the same language over and over again. Uh, it's just about the cool buzzword for today is a broken chain of custody again. Uh, if it was up to me, like I said before, Scott Nagle would be in federal prison. Anybody that supports Scott Nagle and the blocking of our election and our ballots and supporting the broken chain of custody would be—would be a cellmate with him. Um, I can't say anything more than uh, Andy's brought up or Shelby's brought up, but I just want to—I want it to go on record that we repeatedly have the same problems, and—and we're going through the things over and over and over again, and there's a small portion of you guys that seem to want to remedy these things, and there's a—a small portion of you guys that seem happy with the broken system that you guys are following right now. Um, there—there definitely needs to be some type of investigation done, and that needs to happen as soon as possible. And I yield my time. Thank you.

The next testifier is Kina, followed by Lindsay Cam.

Your video—and I'm gonna have to pass and come back in later. I can't testify right now. Thank you.

Can I come in at the end?

Yes, thank you. Okay. The next testifier is Lindsay Cam, followed by Mary Healey.

Lindsay, you're muted.

I know. I'm working on it. Thank you. This is Lindsay Cam, and um, and I'm here to comment on, like everyone else, chain of custody. Um, I actually agree with Mr. Chang that it's a terribly broken system and needs a complete overhaul, but my experience as um, as an election observer uh, led me to submit a written complaint, and I'm just gonna—um—refer—I'm going to read that basically. So I was an election observer for the last two elections in the Counting Room—in the state Counting Room—counting center, and what I observed was that uh, once the—the envelopes arrived in our room, then everything was rigorously accounted for. There were, you know, protocols on top of protocols about how to handle everything and count everything and have multiple people watching everything, and um, however, there's no accounting of the number of envelopes that come through the door, and as everyone else has said, that is a critical unknown. There—we know the number of trays, as others have said, uh, in which the envelopes that were sorted in the county building are—are um—brought over, and but the trays are not sealed, and um, and I can easily imagine that there are opportunities for envelopes to be added or subtracted um, from those trays—added to or subtracted from those trays. Um, we are not—we asked, but we're not provided with uh, any chain of custody documentation or any numbers, and when I asked um, the accounting center manager how they reconciled or accounted for the number of envelopes delivered with what had been um uh—counted back at the—at the county building, he said he had no idea, that was not his job, and uh, that I should ask somebody else. So he said he was responsible for the envelopes once they came into the room; what happened before that was not his concern. So that seems like a huge uh, break—an obvious break right there—and um, it seems to me that election observers should witness the counting of the envelopes at the county, and that would serve as the basis for assuring that all the envelopes that were collected were in fact delivered and none were added. Um, and let's see what else uh, so um, and it's also—it's unclear to me and other observers why there is so much resistance, as other people have referred to, to simply providing factual information um, so that the public can be assured that it's being handled correctly. Um, it seems to me the manual should be amended to require that that chain of custody be um, you know, in black and white for everyone to see, um, not some kind of secret and you're considered rude if you ask about it. Um, and you know, that there should be a communication between the—the county and the state—their staff and the volunteers who are observing. So I'm asking that you investigate the failure to provide chain of custody of the envelopes containing the ballots. Thanks.

Thank you, Miss Cam. The next testifier is Kyle Randell, followed by Marson.

Uh, Randell, you have to activate your video also, please.

Thank you. Mr. Randell, you're off the air. Next—next testifier is Marson, followed by Kina.

All right, has to unmute. I think you picked the wrong guy. Ian, this is Jennifer. You picked the wrong person to unmute. Sorry. Yeah, thank you. Can anybody help him? I believe he needs the um, click unmute. We're asking to unmute; he needs to select unmute. Person, you can hear us. Select unmute if you can—if we can come back to you. Okay. The next testifier is Kina, followed by Marson.

Kina, you need to unmute too.

Okay. Aloha. Aloha. I just want to say—I just listen—you can hear me? Okay. Yes, thank you. Yeah. Okay. I'm grateful that we still have the opportunity to show our faces and hear the voice of the people. I really stand with—with Tara—in the voice of the people. I've done testimony before. I'm pretty shocked that that nothing is being heard at all. Um, I do believe when Scott Nago stepped into office, he swears an oath to a public trust, which is the Constitution of the United States or to the Hawaiian Constitution, or both. I'm not sure, but there's a breach of contract here. Um, as a public official, you guys are trustees, and you're here to hear the voice of the people. We are the beneficiaries, and yet we come and we stand, we do testimony, and nothing is getting accomplished. I just wonder, Michael, to you and anybody on the board, like how do you feel when you go home at the end of the day when you're not doing what you have committed to do? It's a breach of trust, and our—all of our lives reside on trust. So just a thought, in love and light and truth to all, may we come forward and stand in truth. That's what we're here for as living, breathing men and women. God speed ahead. I yield.

Okay. The next testifier is Marson, followed by Jarrett.

We are requesting to unmute. You have to click unmute.

Marson, you had it. I think you got a—you pushed the button and came on. Push it and wait a second. Okay. We can come back to him. Um, the next testifier is Jarrett, followed by Marson.

Hello. Can you hear me? Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay. Sorry. Thanks, guys. Thanks for allowing us the time to give our feedback. Again, once again, seems like we're talking to deaf ears, and it's kind of frustrating uh, with all the complaints. I—I'll be testifying against uh, on the chain of custody and just the procedures that we've been witnessing, and I just wanted to remind everybody that this Donald Trump Administration—they, you know, they released that important information from uh, the DOJ—Department of Justice—saying that this type of actions and acting by these uh, commissions and councilmen and women and Mayors and governors and will not be tolerated under statutory law. He will not support judges or prosecutors. So now it's in our ballpark, and we get to actually go after you folks personally. Those that make the policies and those that push the wrong propagandas and agendas will be able to come and hold you guys accountable in your own personal capacity. So you guys need to make the right moves now because we—now this recording will probably definitely go to the DOJ and the Donald Trump Administration to show exactly what's going on and who's the players and crisis actors that we got to deal with, being that we—we're never heard, but we show up. You know, like we—we see a lot of players here; we're not blind. There's all the recordings. Just want to remind you folks that what you guys are doing—the Commissioners that always voting the other way—the ones that is uh, nominated and put into these places right to go against the right thing—so you guys are making your own personal choices on what the outcome comes, and this stuff—it's what you guys want. We see the actors always voting against what the people want, man. Where we at, guys? The Democratic Party hasn't been working out for Hawaii, only for those that have been uh, put in personal interest involved. You know, like we got to get it right, man. This is Hawaii. No more—no more 20 or 30 out of Hawaii's—just one Hawaii. This is the reason why we—guys like me—don't want the state government to have any participation in this because of you, V, man. Look at the policies you guys are trying to do—take—take exemptions away from kids. Come on, guys, wake up. Thank you.

The next testifier is Marson.

There you go. Hey, guys. I had to relog; I don't know, something was wrong. Hey, so I just got one question on the chain of custody. I—is like you guys talk about it every meeting, over and over again. The testimonies—people asking the same questions—just answer to everybody one simple, clear question: How did you certify elections without chain of custody? That's what everybody wants to know because uh, you know, is—is against the law. I—I testified before. I come from Europe; I grew up in the Communist—and the way you guys running the state is exactly what has been happening over there when I was growing up. It was government officials paid by the government or corrupt uh, pushing agenda, not listening to the public. And my question is: Why you guys even run for—for public office to be a public servant, getting paid by us from our taxes, and then we come here on the meetings, we have questions, we have requests, you know, and you guys not listening to us? If you don't want to listen to the public, don't run for the public office, but at the end of the day, you need to understand you work for us, so everything requested by us it has to be done by you guys. So Scott Nago, he—he's been running elections since 2010. There were absentee ballot shortages in 2012, the uncounted—$1 uncounted votes on Maui in 2014, and he's—he's still in charge. He's logged into the meeting; he doesn't even have the balls to show his face. You know, Mike Curtis, you sitting here every meeting, your—your ears are burning, your face is red. You know, you—you're doing wrong, but you just coming back every month with the same old BS. Uh, Jeffrey, why—why you not even retired? You know what's the point? You just show up to every meeting to block everything Ral is trying to—to do what he's being requested by people of this state. You know, it's like sometimes, guys, you got to ask yourself, you know, if you don't want to serve the public, just find another job, just let somebody else who will listen to us do it, because obviously, you know, you—you—you know the people for the job. I yield. Thank you.

Martinan. There are no more testifiers. Thank you. And I believe we're on item number seven here. I'd like to uh—uh—have a few minutes, please.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Chair. So I want to respond to Scott Nago's—he sent the commission a 350-page document on Monday, which gives us two days to look it over and be prepared before this meeting. And as far as I can tell, what he wanted to do is bamboozle the folks that aren't going to look at that in depth and show, "Hey, we got 350 pages of chain of custody documentation." And here's my reply: How is it possible to have more mail-in ballots than there are envelopes? Scott Nago has been caught inserting ballots in the 2024 election. His letter to the Elections Commission on March 17, Scott Nago contends that chain of custody was kept and state via voter registration system, and I quote: "In other words, from the form in electronic—the form is electronic in that the county clerks interact with the Statewide Voter Registration System for purposes of tracking the issuance, receipt, and spoiling of ballots." Unquote. To be clear, Scott Nago, nor any of the counties, provided a single form from the state voter registration system to back up this statement. There is not one—one document from that system that says, "We voter-verified 3,000 people on Monday, October 21st." None of that. There's not one form. So he's relying on this, and he's saying the—the form is electronic, but he hasn't—he hasn't sent one form. The over/under reports that he provided lack any chain of custody documentation and are unauditable. I have requested logs and documents from counties on how ballot envelopes and signatures are signature-verified through an official letter after the commission voted to investigate signature verification settings. I wrote a preliminary report, and that report was buried by you, Mike Curtis, and the Office of Elections, and it—the report stated that we had serious issues in the signature verification process, but you buried it. I wish to highlight critical concerns regarding the distinction between chain of custody and signature verification. First and foremost, chain of custody and signature verification are not the same process and should not be completed. HAR 317-74-53 covers chain of custody procedures, ensuring ballots are securely transferred and logged from collection points—which is the Dropbox and post office—to the counting center. This process is logistical in nature and tracks ballots as physical objects but does not verify whether those ballots were cast by legitimate voters. In contrast, signature verification, outlined in HAR 317-77-4, is a voter authentication process that compares the signature on a voter's return envelope to the signature on file in the Statewide Voter Registration System. Who verifies how many ballots are signature-verified? A significant concern outlined in the letter is that counties do not verify how many return envelopes are signature-verified before transferring them to the state. Instead, this—this process is managed within the Statewide Voter Registration System, which is controlled by the state Office of Elections. Contrary to Mr. Nago's statement that one of the benefits of the roles and responsibilities of Elections officials being divided is that it naturally establishes checks and balances of the processes such that there is no single entity completing all tasks and reconciliation. While the system electronically tracks the issuance and receipt of ballots, there is no independent verification of the physical inventory of ballots received versus ballots counted. Thank you.

R—next testifier, Chair. I'd like to finish this. This is important.

You have three minutes. You had three minutes, Ral.

Chair, this is important. This—you're gonna—

Ralph, you can come in at the end of the next testifiers. You get three minutes like everybody else. We have other testifiers, please.

The next testifier is Wallen Christian, followed by iPad to all.

And Christian. Good morning. Can everybody hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. My name is Wen Christian. I wanted to bring up my previous complaint about the primary ballot violation of Hawaii Constitution, Article 2, Section 4, on requiring voters to identify as a specific party. This is a violation of law, and because of the lack of knowledge, the people in general did not know that they were being violated. So I brought this up several months ago in—in one of the hearings—uh, excuse me, one of the meetings here, and it was just pushed aside by the Deputy Attorney General at that—

Time and I'd like that to be, um, resurfaced if I may, to have it uh investigated. I don't think any investigation is needed for it because I specifically showed you the law and the violation, and it actually had my primary ballot in hand at the time. Also, the chain of custody has been broken, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but yet Mr. Nogle and specific members of this elections commission's board continue to disregard that and continue to break the law. That needs to be held accountable. Each of you that have, um, I would say agreed with the the chain of custody, the broken chain of custody, that also has to be addressed. Those of you on the board and the Attorney General's office representative—not the gentleman who's sitting here today, but prior—know that your license can be revoked to practice law because of knowledge of breakage of the law and violations. I don't need to repeat myself what many others have already said and continue to say, but those of you who do not fight for the rights of the people and being honest must be removed or remove yourself from the seat. I know that you folks were appointed by certain individuals in our legislature, and what we're going to do is we're going to have to start writing to them saying that their selection has actually broken the law and do not fight for the rights of the people. One last thing: those of you who voted no to hear the voters' complaints and the and to investigate the violations, you're against the people, in truth, plain and simple. I don't want to keep repeating what everybody else has has said. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next testifier is iPad, followed by Jen Hunt. What, iPad? Please state your name and the item you're discussing.

My name is Hanani Here, and I'm discussing uh chain of custody and just voting elections in general. Um, I believe this state went red. I think you guys need a recount with honest people doing the recount. I think you, CIS chair, and certain other people need to be replaced because I do not trust TR our government because of what you guys do. We all testify, and yet you do not do what the people has um stated. What is the problem? Who's paying you guys off? Why are you guys doing what you're doing? Um, I don't see why you guys should be um voting against uh if people want you guys to investigate things. You guys get all our all of our testimonies. People write in, people take the time to come on Zoom or whatever this is and give their testimonies, call the legislators, call our Representatives, yet you folk continually vote against us to do what we ask you guys to do, even though our testimonies are overwhelming, the numbers are overwhelming in a certain way. Uh, what is the problem? You guys need to do some soul searching. Um, our elections are really really corrupt. Scott Nagle has got to go. He's got to be replaced, and whatever you guys can do to remedy this situation, please pray, do some heart searching, some soul searching, because you guys are supposed to be here for—and one more thing is that you know we're in a Republic. If you listen to The Pledge of Allegiance, uh, it says you know uh that we're are a republic, yet we have democracy. So come on now, let's go. I smell a lot of Democrats, and what do you do with Democrats? You pray for them, you love them, and you let them know that they're on the wrong track. So I'm letting you know that. Bless you all, keep you, and you know just um give you a new heart for people, you know, and if if the people who put you in charge are asking you guys to do the wrong things, stand up for us, tell them no. I cannot, in good conscience, I cannot go along with you. Uh, so thank you so much for listening, and thanks everybody for testifying. Have a good day.

Thank you. The next testifier is Jen Hunt, followed by Victoria.

Hi, thank you. I um I did already speak. I just wanted to add I want my my uh official Complaint to be moved to the other official Complaint category. It says records request, refer to OIP, and it is not a request for uh OIP. It's showing the lengths I went to, including an affidavit and uh a records request, but that's not the only uh thing I was trying to do in order to get the chain of custody information, and I'm showing the sauce on how I was uh corresponding with the Maui County Clerk's Office in order to get this documentation and being ignored. So that is what my official Complaint is about. So please move it to the correct category. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss. On here, Anita, some of testif some of the testifiers are being allowed to testify without allowing us to see them. I thought that was an instruction you gave at the very beginning. I asked, and yet they're being allowed to testify without the video part.

Yes. The next testifier, next testifier is Victoria, followed by Mary Healey.

Good morning. Helloha. Thank you for taking my questions, um, and Chck Curtis. I'll try to make this quick. Um, at what time were you first made aware of issues with the chain of custody? Chair Curtis, can you hear me?

Yeah, I can hear you. Are you able to respond?

No, I'm not. Okay. Um, what is your process when you receive those complaints about the chain of custody? That's on item eight in the agenda. Okay. Have our El's been certified? Our election has been certified. Okay. At what date was it certified?

I don't know. Okay. Um, and what was the cutoff date for the election, can to contest the election?

I don't know that. Okay. I'll let you know that um our election was certified on November 20th, and a cutoff date was November 25th, 2024. Um, these are things you should know, being a chair, I would assume.

Um, I'm not, and I know um the general election was contested, correct?

Yes. I'm assuming with Mr. Kush's filing it would be considered as contested.

Yeah. Okay. Your T this is your time, you can make your statements. Um, so when that happens, usually the process is I will stop asking questions. Um, the process is that the elections commission is supposed to go through and pull those ballots and do a recount. That is my understanding, and by all means I'm not perfect, or do I know everything, um, and we're at the point where it is not being followed through, and the process is not being done, and that is where we are getting a bunch of our complaints, and that is, I'm assuming this body is here, is we are representing, and we are not happy because we've either witnessed or tried to get this information, has not been given to us, so we do not have a result from that process. And is your position paid?

No. Okay. Um, were the people who were voted on the general election, are there those positions paid?

I am not sure what question you're asking. So on our general election ballots, the people in which we voted for, those positions were paid for; they get paid by our taxpayers to do a job.

Yes. That's a matter of public record.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. So if the election is contested and has not been satisfied by the taxpayers, that would constitute fraud.

Yes. And as a member of this body and as a registered voter and a citizen of the United States representing here today in this meeting, I feel there is ample representation and evidence to call into question the ability of this commission's purpose to uphold the election integrity in Hawaii. I would move to challenge the elections commission, its members, and chairs as incompetent to fulfill their duties as a whole, and I will be filing charges for financial and identity theft and fraud with my local police department. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. The next testifier is Mary Healey, followed by Jen C.

Morning, Miss. Hi. Good morning. I hope you're all doing well. It's nice to see you all again. Um, uh, Mary Healey, you all know me. Um, I'm here to speak on item eight and uh the complaint filed by Doug Pasnik and uh item seven, chain of custody. I'm here to ask this commission to do something about the intrusion into our election systems, um, as they are acts of war, um, from foreign and domestic actors. Uh, we need to lock them up, and we need to have our election system um be made whole, for better words. Um, the 2026 elections are right around the corner, um, and we only have, if you want to know, from today, 536 days, uh, to be exact. Um, we need secure and transparent elections in Hawaii with all bad actors cleared from the field, and we are making progress. These complaints are definitely evidence of that, and there will only be more; it'll just continue to snowball as it has been for, you know, the last couple of uh meetings, at least the ones that I've been to. Um, there'll be accountability is the point, just like you know how 58 days ago there was some accountability for the nation also. Um, there's going to be this reform regardless of The Usual Suspects who don't want to see the system changed because, of course, they benefit from it, and um just some suggestions, you know, I've given this suggestion before to this Commission: fire Scott Doggo. Um, he's completely failed at his job. Um, that is not an opinion; that's a fact. Um, let's get watermarked ballots so that when we run our audits we know what's happening, um, that they are ballots issued from the offices of of Elections. Um, you know, personally, I would like to see all dropboxes removed from the state and Universal mail-in ballot system be gone. Um, that might take time, but if we watermark the ballots, we'll definitely know if people are slipping other ones into the mail system. So uh, you know, and that was brought to my attention because that's something that um a senator in Arizona is pitching; his name is uh Mark Finchem. You guys should look into him. So um, you know, looking forward to seeing the election change in Hawaii, looking forward to moving forward with you guys on um election integrity. It's going to happen throughout all 50 states, and like I said in a previous testimony, Hawaii should be number one because uh we need we need the um we need the Pacific secured. And with that, I thank you for listening to my testimony. I hope you all have a great day.

Thank you, Missy. The next testifier is Jen C, followed by Robin Query.

Name?

Jen. Hi. I'm Jennifer Kaban. I cannot start up my video; it's not letting me, but um I just like to testify um in regards to the person that was speaking before, Mary Healey. Um, I brought this chain of custody issue up in 2020. My dad suffered from a traumatic brain injury, uh, hemorrhage in 2019, and it showed that he voted in 2020. So I requested from this commission that they investigate it, and I would I requested for a copy of the envelope to see who signed for his ballot, um, if it was mailed in. I think it was mailed in, so I requested that uh several meetings in 2020, 2022, nothing happened. Um, I know several board members changed since then, but you guys were made aware of this issue a long time ago. At spend five years, and um I don't even know if you guys have access to the B the envelope images, do you? Because who's to say that he signed that envelope and that it matches. So that's a chain of custody issue. Uh, Trump recently spoke with the governors, and he asked them to do one-day voting, uh, paper ballots, and voter ID, and I hope you guys can get that done because that would resolve a lot of these issues. I you thank you.

Jen. The next testifier is Robin McCurry.

Morning, Robin. You're—

Hello. Thank you. Um, can I turn my time over to Ralph to have him finish that 300-page document? He'll have three minutes after you.

Okay. Thank you then. Um, what I also like the idea of the watermark; that is amazing. Sorry, I'm driving. I there's no place for me to actually pull over. Hang on. I'm going to do it right now, but um I like the idea of the water um watermarks on the ballot, and I would love to have it a one-day, we vote for, and that's it. We take a holiday for that, and there's no internet happening in the um places. I think we should have more places where we can vote so there's not a line that's a mile long. So and I will volunteer to help run one of those. I ran the caucus back um a year ago in February, so not this year, but last year, and I would be happy to do that and get a bunch of people to help run the voting time um the day, and just have people do that. So I really stress that I think we should go to one-day voting, no internet in there; it's just the machines taking it without being corrupted. Thank you, and I do give him my three minutes or whatever I can give him, so thank you.

Thank you, Miss McCurry. Mahalo. Next speaker, there, Ralph. It looks like—

Okay, Chair, I'd like to finish up what I was saying, please. So who ensures the number of ballots physically received matches the number of in the state's electronic records? Since the counties do not count how many ballots are verified, the state determines both the number of signature-verified ballots and the final vote count. This creates a closed-loop system with no external reconciliation to confirm that all counted ballots were properly authenticated. And then on the state's website, it says, how do you ensure elections officials don't throw away our ballots? This is under Voting Security on the state's website, the question and answer on the state's website states, ballots are always transported and processed in the presence of official observers who serve as the eyes and ears of the public to ensure elections officials maintain security and integrity. Additionally, the number of ballots received, counted are reconciled at the end of each day or are reconciled at the end of each day to ensure no discrepancies. With the information that Scott Nago gave us, he only gave us transfer logs; that creates an eight-day lag from when the first ballots were received by the counties till when they first reported transferring ballots to the state. Now, we again, we have not received any documentation from the Statewide voter registration database. The office of election claims that ballots are reconciled daily to prevent discrepancy; however, records showed that ballots were received by counties starting on October 18th, yet the first report from Kauai County on how many ballots were transferred were not issued until October 26th—an eight-day delay. During this eight days, the number of ballot envelopes increased after collection on Kauai and the Big Island. The the other Islands did not report any numbers to compare to. The delay, deter this delay undermines claims that election processes are transparent and raises concerns whether ballots are actually accounted for daily or if the data is being adjusted after the fact to pre to fit predetermined figures. According to Scott Nago's report when transferring ballots, I quote, the amount of return identification envelopes and voter service center ballots are known values due to the previously mentioned Statewide voter registration system that the county clerks interact with to track ballots. So to summarize what's happening, and I'll wrap this up, the office of elections does not require counties to provide chain-of-custody documentation while collecting ballots, even though it's required by law. Envelopes are signature-verified by the counties, but the state reports the numbers through the Statewide voter registration system, so anyone in the county would never know that the state is over-reporting those numbers. Official observers are not allowed to witness signature verification, and this is where the numbers are being inflated. When ballot envelopes are transferred from the counties to the state, could be opened and counted. Observers are only allowed to count the number of trays and not the actual number of ballots being transferred at the state counting center. Ballots are counted by machines with no independent verification of the actual numbers. Finally, audits are conducted using ballot images, not physical paper ballots. Ballot images can be duplicated, meaning there is no true physical inventory of the ballots any time in the election process. Scott has been caught inserting ballots in the 2024 election, and it needs to be removed, and there needs to be a thorough audit conducted. So I move to remove Scott Nago until an investigation is conducted into this issue. Do I have a second?

Testifying, you're not part, you're not part of the agenda. The we're assuming a test testifiers are over. We'll move to item six, records request, refer to OIP. Mr. Hunt, that's a records request; we don't do records requests. Eight. Could I be recognized, Chair?

No, sir. Item seven, is there any discussion on item seven, the audit?

Yes.

CH, yes, on item seven, results of the audit of HD 737, 2022.

Yes, Chair. I move to subpoena all ballot batch reports for the 2024 general election.

That that's not part of the agenda right now. Thank you.

Yes, it is, Chair. It's on it's on the audit, and Scott Nago references the ballot batch reports repeatedly in the audit, and I move to re to subpoena all ballot batch reports from the 2024 general election. He referenced is this document multiple times. 2022 election audit; we're talking about that's what I'm talking about, Chair. The 2022 general election audit; that's what I'm talking about. You mentioned 2024, sir.

Okay, then I move to subpoena the ballot batch reports for the 2022 general election.

That's correct. Second. And that's that's regarding audit of HD 37.

Yes, sure. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to what was that? Ralph, I moved to subpoena all the ballot batch reports for the 2024 general election.

2024 is not what we're discussing. 2022. 2022. Yes. And that was seconded. Other discussion?

Yes, Chair. They repeatedly Scott Nago repeatedly references the ballot batch reports. When when the ballots are put into the the machine, there's a ballot batch report gets rubber-banded to all of the stacks of paper that are called ballot batches, and what the office of election does is plays a shell game with the ballot batch reports and ballot images. The ballot batch reports are just a summary of the ballots that were in that container. We we should be able to get each one of those ballot batch reports, and all they do is print it out on a PDF, and they can give it to us, and the purpose of this is that these reports are supposed to jive with the paper, and we can print them out, and then we can put in on a spreadsheet and see if those reports comply with or align with what they State on the election results, and the the nuance here is that when they do audits, they either use ballot images or ballot batch reports. Those the ballot batch reports match the paper, and the ballot images match the results; they're two entirely different things, and when he's referencing these reports on the just like the chain-of-custody documentation, which we have still yet to be seen, nobody has seen these; he has not given them to anyone; they're not public. He can't reference these reports reports and claim that everything is fair and true if he can't give them us give us these reports. So I would like all the V this 7, 2022. What's that? That's all included in the House District 37 audit of the 2022.

Yes. He references these reports as long as it, and so he he can't reference reports that he can't give us to as proof.

Thank you. Other discussion?

Would entertain a roll call vote to subpoena the ballot batch reports from Scott Nago for HD 37 and the audit of 2022? No, for the 2022 general election.

Chair, we're talking about the audit of HD 37. All the reports have to be added together; they're they're useless independent. Thank you. Other discussion?

Call the motion from out. Could you please restate your motion that we're voting on?

I move to subpoena all ballot patch reports for the 2022 general election. Roll call, please. Commissioner Andrean?

Yes. Commissioner Aino?

Yes. Commissioner Kushi?

Yes. Commissioner Kuada?

No. Commissioner McAdam?

No. Commissioner Austin Camp?

No. Commissioner Papalu?

Yeah. Commissioner Young is excused. Chair Curtis?

No. 4-4. Moving on to item eight, the official complaints. I'd like there's OIP allows a permitted interaction group, which is a subset of this commission with a specific task to report back to the commission. I would ask for uh permitted interaction group for each of these two items, A and B on number eight, for to receive information and documentation of the complaints that were rendered and receive the receive the explanation of the clerks and the office of elections that are involved. Um, I motion to per point of order, Chair, offer a permitted interaction group for the discovery of information relative to the chain-of-command complaint from Kushi, Detweiler, and Camp, among others. I would entertain a motion to form this permitted interaction group to receive information to research and receive information relative to these complaints.

CH, I entertain a motion or—yes. CH, I moved that you move to form a permitted act interaction group for each of these two categories: chain of custody on Kauai and election discrepancies on the Big Island.

Yes, Chair. There a second. I'd like the offering Amendment. We need a second first.

Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to form a permitted interaction group to investigate chain of custody complaints on Kauai and election results on the Big Island.

Yes, Miss Papalu?

Yes. I have a question, just because of our interaction uh on a telephone call asking me if I would serve on a task for—

Yeah, that's that's the wrong nomenclature. I'm sorry. The the law OIP allows for a permitted interaction group, and they shorten it to PIG, but I prefer to call it a task force. Any other discussion regarding forming these permitted—

Yes. I'd like to amend the motion. Wait, hang on; I wasn't done. Sorry. Not—um, what is between a task force—nothing—nomenclature. I I misused the form the term task force, so they are exactly the same in my mind. Yes. OIP requires a little more technical—

Okay, OIP, I believe there's a reason they're not the thing, and I would like to know what that is. What is the difference? For does not—a task force is not defined in law; a permitted interaction group is, and that's the terminology rather than the function. Could you tell me what a permanent interaction permitted interaction group can be?

A subset of this committee for a specific task, and the specific task is to investigate and generate documentation and facts regarding each of the complaints as well as the clerk and the office of elections' response to those. And are you asking will we be asked for uh determination, or do you just want us doing—

Pap, I I want I want you to accumulate the data relevant to the complaints as well as the data in response by the clerks and the office of elections. I'm asking for the collection of information that validates the complaints and the response from the clerk's office to bring back to us for determination on what we should do about it. So then determination would be made by the commission, the whole commission. This the task force is to collect information. Actually, excuse me, I'm I can't use if I can use PIG in place of task force, I will. The PIG, the permitted interact interaction group is defined by the office of information practices that allows us to form a smaller committee for the for the specific purpose. This specific purpose is to collect information relative to the complaints of chain of custody on Kauai and election discrepancies on the Big Island. Mr. Chair, information and bringing it back to us. I'm sorry, Mr. Qu, go ahead.

Yeah, um, you know, uh, I I don't have any information with respect to permitted interaction groups, and I I would um make the commission aware that this this proposal is not on the agenda. We're we're on item eight.

Yeah. For the formation or the proposed formation of a permitted interaction group is not on the agenda. Task force was my nomenclature error. I was corrected by the AG that permitted interaction group is a defined permitted activity by the office of information practices. Task force was my misnomer. It's clearly on a permitted Action Group. Chair, can we hear from Deputy AG? He has his hand raised.

Sure. Uh, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to just briefly speak on this just to clarify. So a permitted interaction group is um allows board member, it allows the board to assign U members of the commission um two or larger um to investigate and bring facts like um Mr. Curtis is alluding to as long as it's defined, voted on, and defined, um the scope of the investigation is defined at a meeting and voted on as well as the scope of the authority of each member is defined and voted on at that meeting. So I believe that is what is trying to be accomplished, whether you call it a task force or not, um, it that to allow for this under Sunshine, under our Sunshine Law is um we would form a permitted inter um Action Group under that matter. So that just that's just—and and just to speak on the procedure, if if this commission is to form it and define the respective um scope of the investigation and scope of authority with um each member of each respective PIG, what would happen is um at that point um the the respective pigs would make their investigation, and when they're ready to present on it, it would be put on another on a subsequent meeting agenda, and they would be able to present their findings and recommendations, and at that point we would um the commission would not be able to comment or vote on it until a subsequent meeting following that that is to follow the procedure set forth under our Sunshine lock to allow for a group like this. So I just want to make that clear um as we and um discuss this matter, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question.

Sure. Um, and when would the scope of this PIG be or the excuse me, when would the scope of the PIG be determined? In today's meeting?

Yes. When in a subsequent meeting, when the PIG is created, it has a specific and limited purpose, or that's—and the state the state purposes for these two pigs is to chain of custody, um investigate the chain of custody complaints, validate them with the complainants, and get the county clerk's response from it, as well as the second item B, election result discrepancies on the Big Island. So there would be two separate pigs.

Yes. There's there's two separate categories of complaints that I can see: one is chain of custody and behavior on Kauai, and the other is the several thousand vote count discrepancy on the Big Island—19,000. I'd like to amend the motion, Chair.

Yes. I'd like to have the uh Mr. There's there's an amended motion on the floor before the body. What what's the amended motion?

I thought Commissioner Papalu offered an amendment.

No, I did not offer an amendment. I had questions for A and P, and so those questions have been answered by the AG because it does say that we would um offer from his testimony that we were allowed to offer um results, bring back results, and offer recommendations, and so that was that is what I was—

Thank you. So I have no no opposition to the motion.

I'd like to amend a motion, Chair.

Mr. K, were you done?

Oh, yes, I am. Thank you. Mr.—

Yes. I'd like to amend the motion to give the interaction committee subpoena power to compel the county clerks to answer the questions that are asked, and I I be I would ask for a second for that and ask for the DA uh AG's opinion on—I understand that we do have subpoena power, and I think that these pigs would have also have subpoena power. Is that true, Mr. Ching?

So the the PIG is just a it's just a a way to allow for the um the members of the interaction group or of the commission to um interact with one another in compliance with the Sunshine Law. So it's not in conjunction with your subpoena powers, so it wouldn't have a separate subpoena power. All the subpoena um the subpoena power provided under the commission is still limited to the commission; it's it can't be delegated separately to the to a PIG. So that these pigs would not be able to subpoena responses from the clerks.

That's correct. Not not by virtue of just the formation of the PIG; it would have to be brought forth. If if that's the recommendation for the PIG for the commission, it would have to be done by action of the commission, and it would have to be an authorized use of the subpoena powers um under of the commission. So that's what we're gonna vote on.

Yeah. So it's been moved that the each of these pigs have subpoena power within their Authority, and that was seconded. Yes.

Seconded. Discussion. Um, yeah, um, Mr. Chairman, um, I I thought the Deputy AG just said that the pigs do not have subpoena power unless this commissioned, so there is there has to be a separate vote by the commission to AO. Is that the procedure, Mr. Ching? So just to be clear, the commission has subpoena powers, and that is separate from the formation of a pig. The pig is only a mechanism to allow for the commission to interact with another with one another for purposes of the investig investigation created. Um, I mean, that's related to the pig. Um, they can make recommendations to the commission, um, to um, subpoena pursuant to their powers, but the pig would not have separate subpoena powers to on their own unilaterally subpoena um any documents. Does this amendment extend that subpoena power to the pigs if we establish the pigs? Yes, that that power could not be delegated; it would have to come back to the commission, and it would have to comply with the subpoena powers under um under HRS chapter 11. So all that to say is that this creation of the you can't delegate the the commission subpoena power to these um separate pigs. The pig can make investig make an investigation and can make recommendations to the commission, but they're they're not a sub a sub um I guess body of the commission. Okay, so the pig can request the commission to issue a subpoena to force a response from case of the clerks. In this case, they can make recommendations on um on a number of things based on their investigation, including if if they so see fit um subpoena, but again that would have to be under um what's defined as your subpoena powers under HRS chapter 11. Okay, so that's that's for the commission. Yeah. Yes. I don't understand why we can't vote to authorize that subpoena right now. You can, but it wouldn't be valid. Well, we're the board is authorizing it for us to ask question within that limited scope to get this chain of custody information from the county. So for instance, Kawai County, we want to get their official records. We understand question of subpoena, not the information that we're asking for. So if a pig needs to needs to subpoena a clerk for a response, he has to bring it back to the commission for the commission to do the subpoenaing. Is that as you understand it, Mr. Ching? Um, yes, and the commission's decision for that subpoena would have to be in compliance with whatever subpoena Powers is provided under chapter 11, but yes, that if if that's part of the recommendation of the pig, it can be considered by the commission at that point. Okay. And okay, so this is part of the Strate strategy denied delay defur that then you have a next meeting in months. Excuse me. R your politicking is a little excessive. So the motion the amendment on the floor is to give the pig subpoena power. I would entertain a roll call on that one, Mr. Chairman. That's an improper motion; that's why we're probably gonna vote it down. Proper motion. It it flies contrary to the law. I'd like to just vote it down for the sake of having satisfying the amendment to the motion before we activate these pigs. No, per Robert's Rules of Order, you don't even vote on an improper motion. We already know if illegal for the P to have that. Okay, then by consensus we'll eliminate the amendment to the motion. We're not eliminating the amendment to the motion by consent; we are not allowing an improper motion. Thank you. Back to the original motion of forming these two pigs. More discussion. CH. I have discussion to offer. Dylan. Thank you. Uh, the one time that we actually did launch a formal investigation, I recall it wasn't dependent on us first forming a pig, so could we not follow that same procedure on the merits of these two complaints that have already been submitted and vote now as a commission to launch investigations on these two items and not have to form a pig and then report on it in the next meeting and then wait for a subsequent meeting to take action? Um, I'd like to offer to the commission that we could right now vote formally to investigate these two items instead of forming pigs. Thank you, Chairman. There's a m Mr. Chairman, there's a motion before the body. Yes, the the motion is to form the two pigs to research the documentation and the validity of the complaints and to seek the response for the clerk and the office of elections. Discussion, Chair. Go ahead. So what what teeth do we have to make the clerks comply with our requests? And that's that's a problem. This is just a a delay tactic, and we're going to go back and forth. Our next meeting is going to be in three months, and then we're going to defer again, and then the next election's going to be here, and nothing's going to be fixed. So we what Dylan is saying is we need to speed this up. We have the documentation; we have the County's documentation; we have all the attained custody records; we have the postal receipts; we have everything for these two counties, and they don't add up. There's nothing more to get from them except for maybe postal receipts. So I would just like to say let's form this body, but let's also give the um the the the only thing we're missing is the postal receipts from the counties, and we just make a motion to subpoena the postal receipts of the mail-in ballots, and then we will have everything we need to expedite this investigation. Clear. Discussion. CH. Yes. Dylan. Yeah, um, I'm kind of conflicted because I want to move forward with investigations. It seems like I the people on the the board would be agreeable to forming these pigs instead, which I suppose is some progress. I'd like to know from the deput AG if we do form these pigs, are we still able to also concurrently vote as a a body to subpoena documentations that we've been referring to. That would have to be agendized. Me. I don't believe that's up for agenda here that there is no agendized item for subpoena any records. So if it would if it is, that would have to come at a properly agendized meeting. The motion on the floor is to form a committee, and that's a part of if you you you have subpoena power. So I completely disagree with your opinion, and I'd like to get it in writing because the past attorney generals have been conflicted, and that's why you're here now. You're the fifth attorney general in a year that we've had because they're all conflicted. So please, are we going are we going to form these pigs or not? Yes, we're going to form it, and then get asked for the subpoena power. We're going to we're going to subpoena the mail receipts, and that's the last piece we need. Okay, then let's form these pigs, which is okay on the floor. I I'm I'm in support of the motion. Thank you. In that case, I would call for a roll call on forming these two pigs. Hey, Commissioner Andrean. Yes. Commissioner Aino. Yes. Commissioner Kushi. Yes. Commissioner Kada. No. Commissioner McAdam. Yes. Commissioner Oster Camp. Yes. Commissioner Papu. Yeah. Commissioner Young is excused. Chair Curtis. Yes. So to form these two pigs, I would ask Peter Young to chair the chain of custody one. Anita Aino to be a member, and I would ask Lindsay Cam to be a member of that pig, and I would ask Fred Uster Camp to chair the results election result discrepancies on the Big Island with CLA McAdam and Miss Papalio being committee members. Let's see, formal complaint regarding sign certificate. Wait a minute, Chair. What are you doing? What what are you? I'm moving to the next agenda item. No, we we we got to vote on who's going to be on these committees. Why are you? I thought it it's a chair's appointment. We didn't we didn't say that. Are you appointing someone that's not a commissioner? Yes. Why why are you excluding me from these commes? Chair. Why are you excluding me from these committees? Because you've antagonized enough staff already, and you're subject to potential um harassment complaint because I've received several complaints regarding your behavior and with staff. You continue to treat Jazelle as if she's your employee, directing her to add stuff to the agenda. You don't have that Authority. That's what you've antagonized enough people on Kawai. I think Lindsay Cam is a balanced levelheaded person that can report back to the commission The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. This is this is I'm sorry this you have other commission that you can assign instead of having someone outside of the office of election that would offer a good outside opinion that's not precluded by the office of information practices. So Chair, sorry, hang on. R. I need to clarify this. So you are we voted to establish these committees, and you did not tell us that they would be made up of people outside of the commission. They didn't tell you anything other than what my suggestion is and my appointment as chair. Are the members of these pigs? I would highly recommend that you use the talent you have, and I get what you're saying uh that Ralph. May I I get your answer to Ralph. What I'm saying is why are you using outside of the election commission when you have other people. Diling being this is for a collection of information right, and I know Lindsay Cam to be competent on Kawai to pursue that. She's one of the complainants, and I know she's levelheaded and can give us a fair result of the investigation and substantiation of the claims. I think the commission has should vote on that if we should have somebody outside of the commission beed to one of the pig groups that we just voted on. Mr. Ching, who has the do I have the authority as chair to appoint members of these pigs? I believe it should be put up to a vote if the commission is created the pig is creating the pig. So okay, it should be put up to a vote on the members, and there it should also be noted their the scope of their Authority in relation to their investigation. Okay. Believe the Scopes to be to obtain the documentation to validate the complaints and to obtain the documentation of response and any public records that the clerks have and to make recommendations. You're asking somebody outside of the commission to participate in making a recommendation on the commission on a commission act. I'm not talking about recommendation; I'm talking about the collection of information. That's right, but according to the AG, he said that these pigs make recommendations. They can. Once you said that now you are putting someone outside of the commission to make recommendations to the commission that on a task force. This is why I say let's take a vote. I believe if you're going to use if you're going to create that elections commission, you were to create two pigs for these. You did not say to include outside people. Okay. Let let me let me ask that a motion be made that Peter Young, Anita not Anita Ain um that Fred Uster Camp, Clair McAdam, and ah Papalio be on pig to investigate the election discrepancies on the Big Island. Chair, can I just um point of order? It's actually Jeff Oster Camp rather than I'm s I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No problem. I was I was getting ahead of myself. Jeff, sorry. A motion for those three to uh no, the pig of election result results for Hawaii. Paron, and my motion is that only Commissioners are assigned to the pig, period. That's the motion now. You can choose whatever Commissioners you want on the election commission, but only election. See the reason why we have the task for is because pigs gets us past the sunshine. Okay, so that's why you did that. So if we're going the Sunshine Law is so that Commissioners over the number of two, which you would have three right, are allowed to discuss something, so there is absolutely no reason to have somebody outside of the commission on this pig for that's what I'm going to call. So I my motion is that the only people allowed to serve on the pig are election Commissioners. I second the motion that I have the authority to appoint. No, we didn't say that on the motion commission. Correct that's I was asking. Discussion. Does the Deputy AG have an opinion on can we appoint people that are outside of the commission to pigs? So I only say for the purpose of you know in the lens of looking that at this at a at a under the permitted interaction group um there's nothing that would preclude you to allowing a you know a non-commission member to be part of the pig, but if it's a member of the public, I it just should be known that there would be no special relationship or authority conferred to that person, only that they're allowed to participate, and I would also note that you know the um the commission can vote on or they and they need to they're required to define the scope of each member. So if they need to define the specific scope of the authority of that member, then they can um but there's nothing that would preclude adding a me a non-commission member to to allow to participate in the pig. Thank you. Chair. Discussion. I I mean, I don't want to I also don't want to Discount Miss Cam's experience, testimony, and expertise on the matter um are we able to hear from her and just I mean I we haven't even asked her if she's I haven't asked her if she's okay with serving on a pig. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to her either. J. We I think she's on if she'd be willing to if we gave her some time to hear her thoughts. Lindsay Cam, would you be willing to serve on one of these pigs looking at the complaints regarding chain of custody on Kawai? I would be happy to serve on a committee, but I um I I certainly don't feel qualified to uh be the leader of that committee. I would want somebody on the commission to uh give me direction and you know to be the one who knows how to do all this sort of thing. I mean, I could help, but I suggested appreciate the code of confidence, but I don't think that I would know how to begin. I had mentioned Peter Young as the chair of that group with Anita Aino being a member, but the motion on the floor is to limit Pig membership to Commissioners. Election Commission. Y election Commissioners be members of these two pigs that we just voted on? Any more discussion? So the motion is to limit Pig membership to Commissioners for these two pigs. I would entertain a roll call vote. Okay. Commissioner Andrean. I'm going to vote no on this. Commissioner Aino. Um, it's a hard one. I think I'm going to vote no also. Mion Krishne. No. Commissioner Kada. No. Commissioner McAdam. No. Commissioner Oseram. No. Commissioner Papal Liu. Yeah. Commissioner Young is excused. Chair Curtis. No. So I'd like to appoint Peter Young, Anita Aino, and Lindsay Cam to the Kawai chain of custody complaint Pig with the authority to collect information, documents, and data pertaining to these complaints, including from the complainant and the responses from the county and the office of elections. So Chair, you're you're saying that the the the chairs of those two bodies, one is Jeffrey AER Camp and the other one is Mr. Young, and those both are appointed by the majority um party um we need representation for the minority party for one of those chairmanships. I disagree. Chair. Further discussion. Yes. Well, wait a minute. I need a motion on the floor, and I would ask for the motion to appoint Peter Young, Anita Aino, and or let's start with um Fred Uster Camp, CLA McAdam, and Kilani Papalio on the Big Island one, and that's item B8 B. I would ask that Ustra Camp, McAdam, and Papalio be on that pig headed by Mr. Oster Camp, or maybe they can um they can elect their own chair. Okay. Of you making a recommendation. That's okay with me. So will app Point Mr. amp M McAdam and Miss Papalio to the 8B election result discrepancies on the Big Island Pig. I think discussion. We need a mo we need a motion to do that, please. I move. So move. Discussion. Are these pigs they are limited to three members or not? No, but I think expeditiously all we need to collect the information is what information to collect, and I think these three members can ask which information do we need to collect to consider. Was there a motion to I have a discussion with that Chair. Was there there was a motion to appoint AAR Camp, McAdam, and Papalio. Yes. Yes. And I'd like to discuss that. So that that's fine. The majority's going to have the majority on that. I'd ask that on the other uh limited committee that we that we have let's Li let's limit the discussion to this one. I'm discussing this. I'm gonna vote I'm gonna vote for it if we allow the other minority vote. It's not a if then. I would ask for a roll call vote for AUST Camp, McAdam, and Papalio on item 8B, Big investigating the Big Island discrepancies. Would you open to adding a so that each committee is as the commission is baled. We're these people are receiving information, asking for information, and I would like to have these three because it's it's always an odd vote if there is a vote between the pig, but there all they're doing is asking for information and accumulating information for presentation to this place. I no. I think the motion on the floor is for these three to form that pig for the Big Island investigation. Let's get the business. Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Andrean. Yes. Commissioner Kino. Yes. Commissioner Kushi. Yes. Commissioner Kada. Yes. Commissioner McAdam. Am I able to vote on this or Yes, you are. You have to um yes. Yes, sir. Commissioner Aamp. Yes. Commissioner Papalu. Commissioner Papu. Yeah. Commissioner Young is excused. Chair Curtis. Yes. So on to the next Pig. I suggested Peter Young chair, Anita Aino, and I suggested Lindsay Cam because I know she's a balanced head and one of the complainants, so she has an invested interest in obtaining the information, but people object to an outside member on a pig, but I it's not precluded, and I think Lindsay is in a good position to help us. I support that. Chair. I would entertain a motion for Peter Young, Anita Aino, and Andor lindsy Camp. I move. You move to a point to three. Yes. Okay. Discussion. Oh, wait a minute. Second. We need a second. Is there a second to the appointment of Peter Young, Anita Kino, and Lindsay Cam to the pig investigating the train of custody complaint and other election irregularities on Kawai? There there were valid discrepancies. Somebody's got a second. Go ahead. Ralph. You added something. Rph. I said Somebody's got a second. Yep. Second. Second been moved and seconded to appoint Peter Young, Anita Kino, and Lindsay Cam to the pig investigating the train of custody complaint and other election irregularities on Kawai. Discussion. Chair. Oh, goad. I discuss real Qui. I feel if we are going to welcome U miss Cam who is one of the complaintants, we should offer the same privilege to the other two complaintants, which include Commissioner Kushi and Miss deweer to be a part of the pig. Other discussion. I think that's inappropriate. Okay. I would ask for a roll call vote. Okay. Commissioner Andrean. Yes. Commissioner Kino. Yes. Commissioner Kush. Yes. Commissioner Kuada. Yes. Commissioner McAdam. Yes. Commissioner AER Camp. No. Commissioner Papal Liu. Yeah. Commissioner Young is excused. Chair Curtis. Yes. Thank you. Moving on to item nine. Formal complaint regarding sign certificate before certification uh from Mr. Pasnik. Unrefuted facts. The swearing in of Governor Green was prior to the certification of the election. Chair. We're not done with the 17 the number eight yet. What would what would you like to flesh out with that? Okay. Maui, the county of Maui, the I'm going to back up a second. County of Kawai has a discrepancy in their chain of custody. The county of hoi has a discrepancy in their chain of custody. The county of Maui has no chain of custody. We need to subpoena their chain of custody documentation in accordance with HAR 3-1 77453 because they have not provided any, and Scott Nago has not provided any. So I would like I would ask I move to subpoena the county of Maui their chain of custody documentation that complies with HAR 3-17 7453. That's nowhere on the agenda. That's out of order. That's on the agenda. I'll include that in the next agenda. I'll include Maui on the next agenda as well as recommending a formal investigation as well as the status of motions and so the chair the same thing goes for the City and County of Honolulu. They have no chain of custody documentation. All they report is going to the dropboxes, but they do not document how many ballots they collect through. That's not that not on today's agenda. You're out of order. We're moving to number nine. It's on the complaints. Share. It's on the agenda item on these compt s um Miss de weer on the February 16th letter, which is item C specifically talked about that, and then uh Jennifer Hunt's complaint specifically talked about those items. Those are directly on the agenda. Then then that's part of that Pig's agenda. No, no. You limited bring back to us if they need obtain the agendas or the response. The pigs are up for that purpose. They'll ask us; they'll come back and ask us for the agenda. We don't have Maui on the agenda. We're moving on to item nine. Yes. Chair. You do. Where do you have kaai on the agenda? Kaai is represented by my complaint. AO's complaint is represented by Jamie deweer. Miss Ho is the Big Island, and then uh Jennifer Hunt is the uh Maui. So why aren't we addressing all of the islands when we're assigning these task force? We got two more task force to do, or we make the we make a motion to subpoena the information, or we assign task force for Oahu and Maui. Well, that this is regarding the custody chain of custody complaints which will be investigated and respond replied back to by the pigs to us, but the pigs are established. Maui is not mentioned. Your chain of custody subpoena isn't mentioned. The pigs will bring back those requests to us as appropriate. Right now we're moving to agenda item nine. Okay. Could you look at Agenda what is a number one, number two, and number three talks about Kawai, Oahu, and um Kawai again, and then the other ones the pigs are to investigate those complaints. Okay. Receive receive information and validation for those complaints. The complaints mentioned the pig will look at it. We're on to item number nine. No, Chair. We we're skipping Dead Wilder's motion. You're out of order. That Wilder's cons is included in the first Pig. So Oahu and Maui, the the complaints that were listed in the pig will be investigated by the Pig. Right now we're on item number nine. Ralph. I'd like clarification. Complaint regarding sign certificate before for certification. Shair. Are the pigs allowed to investigate the other Islands? Just make that clear. They're able to investigate the complaints that were listed. Okay, so the the complaints list all the We're out of order. We're not on number nine. Formal complaint regarding sign certificate before certification. Chair. There are hands raised. Yeah, my hand was raised as well. On on item number nine. Nine. Yes. Number eight. We're P item eight. We're on item nine. I think Commissioner Kushi brings some valid points unless you're clarifying for us that those pigs can investigate Maui County and Honolulu County. They're investigating the three complaints that were listed. If they included Maui and the Big Island, then it's under the purview of that Pig. Right now this meeting is on agenda number nine. Shar. This is formal complaint regarding sign certificate before certification, and we have some more testifiers that I would offer the opportunity now. Okay. The next testifier is Tera Roas, followed by Wallen Christian. Miss Roasa. Aloha. Okay, so Tara, my testimony is going to be that this this is crazy. Why do you even have this Commission meeting if this commission is run just pretty much like a Elementary School House bullying? That's all we see. Literally just bullying. It's it's it's crazy that you are a grown adults and that you are literally bullying your own commit commission member and you're not listening to the public and you just want to continue to hide what needs to come to light, what has been filed and what has been documented. This is just crazy watching this and hearing this meeting after meeting aenda it after agenda item. You don't want to go over anything. Literally, you do not not want to go over anything that the public is bringing out and filing, and you all know the consequences, and it's just crazy to see how it just keeps going on. This needs to stop. This is a meeting regarding the elections in Hawaii and its consequent problems, and you continously bulldoze and Bully and shut down the voices of the Commissioners that are listening to people, and this needs to stop. Otherwise, why even sit there? Why even have this meeting? Literally, why are you even forming a part of this elections commission meeting for the people of hav? It's not for the it's not for the board member or the chair of this commission; it's for the people of Hawaii. This needs to stop. This is this is a meeting, and you're continuously shutting everyone's voices down. Please remove yourself. You and the board members who just kind of go along and don't listen to anything just okay. Yep. No, no, no. Against or for if it's against the people. This needs to stop. This is a meeting; this is not a playground where you can bully your way through. Mahalo. Thank you. M. Roas. The next testifier is Wallen Christian, followed by Keon Payton. Aloho. Can you folks hear me? Yes. Thank you. Um, I'm going to reiterate the words that Tara Rohas just said, but this is the one thing I'm I'm starting to see. Chair Curtis, granted you're trying to do work, but what everybody is witnessing here today is basically you're shutting the people out. Unfortunately, what's happening here, if I'm looking at these two pigs, the people that you appointed, not asking the people, not asking the rest of the Commissioners, you appointed you are swaying the balance to again the Democrats, and that's very hard for us the people to watch because now we see very clearly for those of us who've been here a while, we already know, but those of us that are are just jumping on they are frustrated because this is not happening correctly. Why didn't you put Mr. Kushi on there? He's one of them that's advocating for the rights of the people and the law, but yet you seem to continue to keep them keep him out of the deal, but yet you're putting somebody in, and I don't know who this Miss Cam is. I really don't know who she is, but I agree with Papal Liu. Why are you going outside of the commission when you have nine commission members or eight if you if you remove yourself from that situation? Mr. Uster Camp said that it was inappropriate to have Jamie deweer or another per or Ralph Kushi on the board. He didn't say it was inappropriate to have Miss Cam. So my question is where is this going? It is trying to make this sway to one side so that again the people's voices are shut down. You know, Mr. Curtis, you shouldn't be appointing anybody, and I'm going to say this the the deputy attorney general said it should not be appointed; they should be voted in; it should be taken to a vote, and he can go ahead and reiterate that. And so even though you do these pigs, what's happening is we still see the sway. The sway is against the people. That needs to stop. I really don't think that you should be able to appoint anyone to these boards. You need to have an even sway, as Papalio said. I yield. Thank you. The next testifier is Keon Payton, followed by Jerck Mados. For Pton. All right. You guys hear me? Yes. Hold on one second. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So um um Mike Curtis, I noticed that you said you have there are complaints against having um oh sorry, there's feedback that you have problems with um sorry, my son's oh hello. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. How long it's not working. No, we got you. Can you hear me? I'm not getting it. I can't hear you guys now. Okay. We we can hear you. But um Mike Curtis, Chair Mike Curtis, you said you would have complaints against Ralph Kushi, but everybody testifying you have multiple complaints against the way in your Draconian nature of how you're treating everybody in the commission. You aren't a you aren't a sole word on what happens here. There's you know uh Robert's Rules of Order. You guys there's a there's a precedence and protocol that's supposed to happen here that you're not allowing to happen.

And um, I just wanted to make note of that and bring this to light. And we're watching you, my man; we're watching you. We know what you're doing. It was a move so that you decide who, part who, this Pig, who these these people are involved on this pig, is because you're going to sway their the way they look at these the the evidence. Also, that's why you need to be removed, Mike Curtis. You're not doing anything for the people you to AAR Camp; all you do is just vote no against everything. You're a party loyalist; cut it out. The party is the people; it's everybody in here.

Yield. Thank you. The next testifier is Jerck Mados, followed by Shelby Billionaire.

Mr. Mados? Yep, got you, man. I can't believe this. What happened? Oh, hey, Ralph is the guy that got the numbers. [Music] Man, is he a problem because of that? It seems to me—listen, I don't want McAdams to take care of the Big Island; does nothing for the people of the Big Island. She's a problem. I don't want AAR Camp to be hitting the big island. The fact that we should have County elections separate from the state elections because of this situation—we never had to been on this state election process. This is the problem right here: we have guys blocking what's supposed to do but not doing that; doesn't make sense. Mike, why would you eliminate Ralph when he did the due diligence? He's the guy; he's making you guys look good, and you want to you want to not let him participate in that? That is crazy; super crazy, man. It's dangerous. Why would you guys do that, Kada McAdams, Aeran? Why would you guys want to do stuff that goes against the people? Why? What's the conflict here, right? You guys are getting paid under the table to make these dumb decisions. Mr. K, you're the guy that always got caught for corruption, or it and you and our campaign, our commission campaign stuff; that is even more crazy. AAR Camp, you man, you already got popped already for being corrupt. Come on, guys, we don't got to look too far. We're we're talking about agenda items, please. I am talking about this is the problem right here. Mike, you—we don't like you be the one for pick anybody; you're making unilateral decisions, man, that shouldn't be like that. Come on, shame on you. Are you guys adults? Are you guys freaking kids? Come on, man, snap out of it. Do something right for once. You guys know what you guys looking—you guys sleep good at night? That's crazy, bro. The future of Hawaii's going to be to because of you guys. Come on, man, pull yourselves up; rise up, guys. Let's go.

You. Thank you, Mr. Madaras. I have a information. Uh, yes, Miss. Did we not vote for Jamie and Ralph to be on the pig? That was a by um, Commissioner Andren. No, we voted the others, so that—am I correct? Voted yes: Pita Aino and Lindsay Cam. That was the last vote. Uh, who's the next testifier? Oh, I'm sorry; there was a motion made by somebody. D—yeah, those those were passed. The next testifier, please. Wait, my point of information is not settled. Dyan, did you not make a motion to ask Ralph and Jamie DeWeer and one other person to the—is Dylan on still? And it died. That motion was voted down. Now, next—no, voted yes on that motion, which surprised me. Please have them look at that Ro for motion. Okay, we'll look at that right now. We're taking Tes—do we'll finish with a testimony, please. Dylan just texted on the chat that he can't unmute himself. He can't unmute himself. We have testifiers standing in line. Dylan will get a chance later. Right now, we're going through the testifiers. Next testifier, please. You know, help—the next testifier is Shelby Billionaire, followed by Victoria.

Hi, can you guys hear me? Can you unmute my video? I think I'm having the same problems like Dylan. The Commissioners—there you go. St my video—there you go. Okay, thank you all for listening, for being patient. Now, we're going through a lot of frustration. Thank you for the timers. I can see how long I can talk to to try to change your hearts, to change all this confusion, and we got to go through because we're going through this every single month, and I didn't even want to come to this meeting because already we already talked to Ralph and other people on the site side to see how can we follow up to the public. The public's very frustrated because you already heard about the party system, the Republic entire GOP in Hawaii only got two bills going through, and may not even become a law. So everything you guys are doing, the way it looks to the public, is that you're are very donkey flavored. You're in the Democratic party; you're appointed by the Democrats. Uh, Senator Coochi from Kawai, you only got three reps there, and everything you guys need help on Kawai—there's human trafficking, drug smuggling—got got down. Of course, Ralph should be on the chain of custody because he did all the due diligence, the documents, he F the LW, did the paperwork. Yeah, you guys might think he's biased, but who else did the work? You're not going to take all of his credit. Like Jerick said, Big Island needs help and support. You think they're going to do—check them out—no way. They got drug smuggling; the chief police is dirty on Maui; the chief police is dirty on the Big Island. You guys got some serious stuff to go through now. Who wants to run for office to take over all these positions? Because now what you guys are pitching here—what kid, younger generation, younger than you and me, actually wants to run for office and go through this Kai? They don't want to; they don't want to vote; they don't participate because of this Kai. And even if you get into office, you have to cater towards the party. It's not a Republican thing; it's not an independent thing; it's a Democratic thing because he's still broke the US con—the Ho state constitution 1978 that you guys traded. I was born in 1982. How can you break your own constitutions written in black and white? Then you go in the public tell us, "Oh, we have to make more rules, make more statutes, make another bill to become a law," but we don't follow our own laws and the Constitution, which the base is supposed to be for. So it's all federal fraud, especially when you're talking about Maale; that's how you bust the chief police from Honolulu, K, because of MRA, not his dirty schemes, not his other stuff. Now you cannot assign corrupt Commissioners because they're all Democratic; they're going to choose the Democratic people. This is super biased, and it's pretty much borderline discriminatory. I'm pretty sure there's unconstitutional stuff there when you talk to your D—your Dag attorney general about all these things because every time you have the primary election, you force people to choose a party, and that's unconstitutional; that's illegal, but you still go through it. Oh, we broke the Sunshine Law; that's why we can't talk about it. Now we're going to talk about a pig, really? You're going to call a Pua a pig? Oh, great. I want to make fun of this all day long, talking about pigs: oink oink oink pig pig pig here piggy pigy pigy come babe come do you want to go CH—count the letters—cuz we only gave the trades—we're so half aity—we don't even want to count the letters. We could have hired high school kids; we could have hired anybody to this nonprofit work, any super pack. You guys got the money; you got the budget; you guys got the money, cuz I heard Scott now go say it and talk about the budget, and they still want the same percentages yesterday in the crap, so whatever you guys talking story over there, I don't really care. Get stuff done for the future and future Generations, otherwise—know what's Happ.

Thank you. The next testifier is Victoria, followed by Wendy Badoo.

Victoria, you're muted. You need—I mute—there you go. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to chime in as an HR Manager. I understand how you can appoint people, and you have the privilege to do so; however, those people need to be consulted, and they also need to have the experience, and there needs to be a clear application with their scope and the purpose in which they're serving in order to effectively get this position filled and taken care of. I know if you need applicants on the Big Island, I would be happy to apply for the position. I think other people should also have that opportunity, and seeing as how it's the people who pay their taxes and are footing the bill on this, I think they should have the opportunity to vote on it as well. I yield. Thank you, Victoria. The next testifier is Wendy Badoy, followed by Nicole Baron Nois.

Aloha, this is Wendy. Can you hear me? Aloha, yes. Hi. Um, I do believe that we did take a vote where someone made a motion to add in like what Papy Liu was saying. Um, if the person that did the roll call votes can uh confirm that because I did hear it, and I think a lot of us on here um have done it, and since you have the chat turned off, we can't even talk or confirm, but um, just watching this, it's like a dictatorship. I'm not sure how you got so much power, um, Sher ctis, where you can just dictate to everybody, and the other Commissioners need to speak up. I mean, some of you—you're just there; I don't even know if you're participating or listening; you're just voting. And yeah, some of you are just voting the way that maybe you're paid to vote, but it's very very disheartening to just come on here and see the way things are run. It's it's just so mindboggling how it's come to this, and it does need to change. Um, I I don't know what else to say, but I I just wanted to get on there because it's so frustrating. And yes, you need to get back to where—listen to the people; never mind the parties. Yeah, I yield. Thank you, Wendy. The next testifier is Nicole Baron Nois, followed by Lindsay Cam.

Hello. Um, I think the most important thing is we need to recognize that um, it—you, Mr. Kushner—uh, you—is that how I say your name? I've every time I've seen you, you are the corruption. We need as a body, as a people, to come together and vote you off. You need to be taken off of all of this because you obviously are conflicted. We can see this. You need to have investigat—investigation on you. Okay, we see it; we've been seeing it, and we're going to continue to share how corrupt you've been. You are being biased; you are the one bullying all the things you're pointing others and saying they're doing; you are the one. You need to be removed, and I think we would all gladly vote you off, and I think as a as a body we would love to come together and make that as a point of the meeting to do that. And um, Ralph, we should applaud him; everything he's doing, he did not ask for this, and he is still fighting tooth and nail trying and trying to get the word out that we are not—we are not certified; we are still under investigation because your votes were corrupt. The chain of custody—custody—everybody knows the chain of custody was corrupt. Okay, so we're investigating, and we're we're getting transparency, and we will keep fighting for this, and you need to be removed. You are too biased; obviously, you're part of the corruption, and I cannot wait for Doge to come in and clean house. Okay, and we we need to come together and recognize our rights, so I I don't know where we have to find them, but as a group we have to come together and get rid of these people that are dead weight, not doing anything, obstructing, um, messing with the chain of custody. I'll take it as personally—if you're obstructing it, you are messing with it, and that is treasonist; that is our votes; those are our rights—treasonous. How dare you? People don't know because you guys just call—call uh the votes; you certify the votes—not be before time—before you don't even go through the whole proper chain of custody. We know what happened; why—how come there's the numbers are so off? And it's due to the corruption, and you need to be voted off; you need to be taken off; you need to—you should not be anywhere near this; you need to go home, get your check, and let somebody that is responsible, doing all the hard work like Ralph, run this meeting, and I think we'd get some fairness; we'd get something moved; we'd get past the stupid issue we keep coming up with again and again, and we have enough of us that we should be able to get you off that board. You do not belong to have that position. So who's the problem here? It's you, sir. You need to resign ASAP. I yield. Thank you, Nicole. The next testifier is Lindsay Cam, followed by Jen Hunt.

Hi. Um, so I I had my hand up earlier when I was under discussion, but I had no opportunity to say anything. Um, I don't want to be uh an issue; this isn't anything I asked for. Um, but if you know if it's uh problematic to have somebody who is not a commissioner to be on the committee, that's fine. Um, I I leave it your hands, but um, I you know there's a part of me that agrees; I'm like an unknown—an unknown person; why should I have this privilege? Uh, but um, whatever you decide is fine with me, or maybe it's already decided; I don't know; I can't keep track of what you guys are up to. Um, anyway, that's it, unless anybody has a question for me. Thank you. Fy. Okay. The next testifier is Jen Hunt.

Uh, hi. Thank you again. So um, I I don't want to take the full three minutes; I I don't need it, but I I do want to just reiterate that my formal complaint was put in the wrong category. It is not a records request; it's not to refer to OIP. My complaint literally says in the subject: formal complaint about chain of custody. And so I would like it to be moved. Obviously, you can't move it on this particular agenda right now, but it needs to be moved to the proper category and looked at just like the other Islands. My point was in my letter um to the office of elections was to say I'm I'm filing a formal complaint because the correspondences in the past Election Commission meetings was overlooked; it kept being overlooked because you guys don't look at those correspondences. So I wanted to file a form of complaint showing that I've exhausted all of the Avenues to try to get the chain of custody documents, and nothing is forthcoming. So my complaint is supposed to be in the category of the other ones of the for formal complaint regarding the chain of custody. If you're overlooking Maui because you're saying it's not on agenda, that's absolutely not true. Somebody put it in the wrong category on purpose so that it would be overlooked. So I would please request that it be moved to the proper category and looked at by this commission. This is very important. Um, that's it. I I I guess I don't have to say it one more time; I guess you guys get it now, right? That it was put in the wrong category; it shouldn't be a number six; it should be a number seven or number eight, wherever the complaints are, because that's what it is; it's a formal complaint about chain of custody and the lack thereof. Thank you. Thank you. The next testifier is Jessica Priia, followed by Carl Dicks.

Can you hear me? Yes. So I'm wearing a hat specifically because of this meeting. I'm having moments right now where I'm listening in, and it's We the People vers corruption. I am so sick of being a part of these meetings and hearing you guys talk about things and how you conduct, you know, Robert's Rules and how, you know, chair—I get very frustrated with you when I hear you, and then I hear from the people—we the people hold the power; we the people have the say; you do not represent us. And for you to suggest certain names only tell me that those are the people that we need to look out for that are the ones who are shady and corrupt with you. And so I've been trying to hold my tongue this entire time, and I hate how you guys always have the chat off and everything else, but we are tired of election not being held accountable. Scott Ngago, I've I personally have delivered paperwork to the office for the last four years—five different times. I have spoken to the office officials several times; I've been there, and the way that everything is conducted is is a way to suppress our voices and to discredit us and to ignore us. I'm tired of being ignored. Listen to the people. I'm wearing this hat specifically for you, chair, okay, because you have been—I feel like you need to hold your tongue sometimes, and then the way that you speak—show some aloha; show some respect. Like I—it surprises me how you're even in your role except for the fact that you have your puppet strings, and they're working them very wisely. Um, you're good at that; you're good at playing the position, but we see you; we all see you. This is We the People vers the corruption, and I hope that you hear everyone's voice to like—period. I—it just—it's so infuriating, and I have these moments where it literally almost brings me into tears because I feel like no matter what we do, you still don't listen to the people. How many times do we have to keep giving testimonies for you to change something? Just blows my mind. I'm done. Thank you. The next testifier is Carl Dicks.

Hello. Um, I can't turn on my video. My video is locked out. There you go. There we go. Yeah, thank you, sir. Um, Robert's Rules of Order. I've got years and years of EXP experience. Yes, it is true; the the chair can appoint to the committee, but if there's objections to those appointments, the clear and proper method would be open the floor for nominations for those positions. That's the way Robert's Rules is supposed to be; it's supposed to make the meetings flow better, and it's being used to obstruct, and it's being used—them—properly. The proper way—yes, in—if everybody agreed to your appointments, would be one thing, but there's objections to your appointment, so the proper thing to do would be to open the floor for nominations for to fill these positions on the Committees. I—you—thank you. Commissioner Kush—has his hand—hand raised. Yep. Yes, chair. I'd like to have three minutes also. You have it. Okay, chair. So I'm going to summarize the chain of custody issues really quick. There's several thousand ballots that the county of Kawai cannot account for. After I filed a lawsuit in the state supreme court, the county of Kawai came back and changed the documentation—the chain of custody documentation. I foed the uh postal records; the entries that they made and change cannot be substantiated. So not only do they not have the collections data, they've also altered their documents. On the Big Island, the Big Island kept—caring—custody documentation, and we foed their postal records. They are 19,42 ballots short of uh documentation that they don't have, showing the ballots. The county of Maui has no records for chain of custody. The county City and County of Honolulu documents going to dropboxes, but they don't um record the numbers. In Scott L. Nag's letter to us, he said that we have chain of custody, and he said it's electronic, but he hasn't given us one piece of paper, one record that shows that they had chain of custody—zero. He he gave us ceiling of documents, which is not what we're asking for, and now you're going to exclude me. I've done all this homework, and what the public is saying is you don't want to find the truth. We don't have chain of custody documentation. The state—somebody is inserting votes during the signature verification, according to the the county and the state's numbers. There are votes appearing on the Big Island and on Kawai; the other Islands don't count it, so there's nothing to compare to. And I would ask that the commission—after this—we need to count the number of ballots and the number of envelopes that are in the possession of the state. Their documentation shows that they do not have the physical inventory, and this would be very simple; we simply just count the number of pieces of paper and see if they're there, and if they are there, we need to understand how did those extra ballots get into the system because how did it get around the collection stage from the dropboxes and the post office. And then further, you're saying that I've chastised the county of Kawai; I'm asking them for the chain of custody documentation, and they're getting all riled up about me asking for chain of custody documentation; that's not my fault; it's public information; they should be supplying to it—us—that information. So I yield. I hope the commission—we can do one more motion asking to count the physical pieces of paper with a paper counter. Thank you. Thank you, Ralph. Moving on to item nine: the formal complaint regarding sign certificate before certification. So the governor was—wait, wait, wait, wait—we still on number eight. I move to count—we're number eight; we're on number nine. We established two pigs and the members of the pigs, so we're moving on to number nine: sign certificate before certification. Can I make the motion? If he can't—on item nine—this is for item eight—the the two pigs have been empowered to obtain this information and bring it back to us. Are they—do you—can advise those people of what information you think is relevant. Right now we're on item nine: formal complaint regarding the sign certificate before certification. So the go—governor was um signed in before the election was certificated. This is something for the courts to look at if they're going to depose the governor or if they're gonna—if we're going to do something about the certification or the lack of certification because of the timing. Scott Nago has been put testimony in front of this legislature regarding the timing of some of these certifications. Anybody want to do anything with item number nine? Yes, chair. I move to have the deputy attorney general answer Doug Pik's question: if it was lawful for Scott Nago to certify an election before it was certified. Is there a second? Second. If we need a motion—yes, CH—Ralph—the 2022 election—on I believe it was November 28th—uh, Ree Nakamura sent a letter to the Chief Justice and said it's unlawful for Scott Nago to write a certificate of election while the election is being contested. On that same day, Scott Nago, on the 28th of November, wrote a certificate of election for the governor and lieutenant governor. On December 5th, the governor and lieutenant governor were sworn in. On December 7th, the Chief Justice recused himself from that case, and then later on the 16th of December, the election was finally certified. So he certified the election three weeks—he signed a certificate of election three weeks prior to the election being certified, and the law specifically states that it's unlawful to do so. And so we're asking the deputy attorney general to write an opinion to the Commission in writing: was this lawful or not? And it should be a simple ask; there should be no reason why anybody should say no. We should not ask the deputy attorney to—we should just say yes, let's find this opinion, and then uh we'll talk about it in the next meeting. And so have that opinion ready for us in the next meeting so we can disc—discuss it. More discussion. Well, let's make sure we put that on the agenda to get that respond. There's a motion on the floor now. Any more discussion on that motion requesting AG Ching's opinion or the AG's opinion rather than the courts? Any other discussion? The—yes, chair. I have one more thing—something different. Ral, if anybody's going to vote no, please explain to the public why you're going to vote no on asking the opinion of the Attorney General. Thank you. Other discussion? Ask for a roll call. Commissioner Andreon? Yes. Commissioner Aino? Sorry, Jazelle, could you repeat the motion? Okay. Um, yeah, Commissioner Krishne, can you repeat the motion because all I got was to have the deputy attorney general provide opinion on—so the Doug pass next question was: was the certificate—writing the certification before the election legal? And I'm asking—I made a motion to have the deputy Attorney General give his opinion if it was legal to write a certificate of election before the election was certified, and I'm voting yes on it. Thank you. Roll call. Okay, Commissioner Andreon? Yes. Commissioner Aino? Yes. Commissioner Kush? Yes. Commissioner Kada? No. Commissioner McAdam? No. Commissioner Amp? No. Commissioner Papal Liu? Yes. Commissioner Young is excused. Chair Ctis? No. A matter for the courts, not the AG's opinion. Is there any any other item? I think that's the end—end of the agenda, so I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you for coming.