Hawaii
NOAA ship ‘has a special mission’ – West Hawaii Today
![NOAA ship ‘has a special mission’ – West Hawaii Today NOAA ship ‘has a special mission’ – West Hawaii Today](https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/web1_240907-new-okeanosexplorer-11.jpg)
Hawaii
Hawaii trafficking charges part of case against arrested Philippine mega-church pastor
![Hawaii trafficking charges part of case against arrested Philippine mega-church pastor Hawaii trafficking charges part of case against arrested Philippine mega-church pastor](https://gray-khnl-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/v2/NK65AUSS2VFA5MCCLUN3KFJHUQ.png?auth=c154550102a73f442452d1b968418837a2b6de9fec647af6ff49d29eb7d46e27&width=1200&height=600&smart=true)
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Philippine televangelist Apollo Quiboloy, accused of human trafficking and sex assault — including in Hawaii, was arrested this weekend in the Philippines after a two week stand-off between law enforcement and his followers.
The FBI may have considered apprehending Quiboloy in Hawaii years ago, but his arrest in Davao ended up being one of the most dramatic law enforcement dramas in the Philippines.
Thousands of Philippine police and military were met with a human blockade of Quiboloy supporters when they came to arrest him two weeks ago at the huge Kingdom of Jesus Christ compound.
Quiboloy and several aids finally surrendered early Sunday.
Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. gave credit to both Quiloboy and law enforcement.
“To his credit, he was still displaying a modicum of leadership to his followers,” Marcos said. “I will stress it was a very — how we say — involved police action.”
Quiboloy was a close friend of prior President Rodrigo Dutarte, and Quiboloy was critical of Marcos.
Hawaii Attorney Mike Green is on the church’s American legal team.
“He’s been he’s been mentoring and and being a pastor for over 3 million people, almost 200 cities, countries around the world. I’ve seen the work he’s done. I’ve seen the Children’s Joy Foundation. This is a horrible payback for what I believe is a political Vendetta,” Green said.
The church brought young girls as religious workers to Hawaii and Los Angeles to raise funds by selling donuts and other baked goods.
In Hawaii one young lady fled a church compound in 2015 and claimed she was trafficked, beaten and forced to have sex with Quiboloy along with other women and girls. She said church leaders retaliated by accusing her of sex assault of a minor. Honolulu prosecutors pursued the case for four years before finally dropping it in 2019.
Attorney Victor Bakke represented her for the first several years of the case.
“Everything that she said just sounded like a cult that she escaped,” Bakke said. “They’d shaved her head, they put her in a concentration — or they called it a re-education camp.”
In 2018, after the FBI had been investigating the trafficking claims, Quiboloy and his private jet were seized at the airport. On board was the head of his Hawaii operations Felina Salinas, who was charged with trying to smuggle $300,000 in cash to the Philippines for Quiboloy.
After investigation, the charge was reduced. Salinas served 30 days in jail and Quiboloy went home on a commercial flight, leaving the private plane behind.
Bakke said he believes Salinas took the fall for Quiboloy to enable his escape.
“I talked to the agents on my case, and they were extremely upset when they found out that Quiboloy’s plane had been detained here, and that he wasn’t taken into custody.”
After raids of church properties in 2020, in 2021 the FBI indicted Quiboloy and church leaders and members including Salinas, who the FBI said played a key role in trafficking, controlling and organizing sex partners for the pastor.
The case has been waiting for Quiboloy’s arrest, but its not clear if the Philippines or the U.S. FBI will prosecute first.
Salinas and other indicted church members are out on bail.
Quiboloy has repeatedly and vigorously denied the charges, including getting a prosecutor in the Philippines to charge Hawaii News Now employees with criminal libel for the stories.
Copyright 2024 Hawaii News Now. All rights reserved.
Hawaii
9th Circuit partly upholds injunctions against location-specific gun bans in California and Hawaii
![9th Circuit partly upholds injunctions against location-specific gun bans in California and Hawaii 9th Circuit partly upholds injunctions against location-specific gun bans in California and Hawaii](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2022/08/newsom-bill-of-rights.jpg)
After the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms two years ago, several states responded by making concealed-carry permits easier to obtain but much harder to use, banning guns from long lists of “sensitive places.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of the politicians who embraced that strategy, portrayed it as justified resistance to a “very bad ruling.”
Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is not known for its friendliness to Second Amendment rights, dealt a blow to that end run by partly upholding two preliminary injunctions against location-specific gun bans in California and Hawaii, including prohibitions on guns in places of worship, banks, public transit, medical facilities, and certain parking lots. At the same time, the appeals court upheld several broad provisions that make it a crime to carry guns in parks, playgrounds, “places of amusement,” and bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, along with Hawaii’s default rule against guns in businesses open to the public.
Under the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, gun laws that restrict conduct covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment pass muster only if the government shows they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In Wolford v. Lopez, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Hawaii and California had failed to meet that burden in defending several gun-free zones.
Although the Supreme Court has recognized a historical tradition of prohibiting guns in certain locations, it has been hazy on exactly which locations qualify as “sensitive places.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Court first explicitly recognized a constitutional right to armed self-defense, it said, “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions…forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” The Court was not much more specific in Bruen: “Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.”
Applying the Bruen test, the 9th Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs who challenged California’s law are likely to succeed in their argument that the state’s ban on guns in places of worship is unconstitutional. “From the colonial times through the ratification of the Second Amendment and continuing through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendant has not pointed to a single regulation banning firearms at places of worship or at any analogous place,” Judge Susan Graber writes in the panel’s opinion. “The lack of any regulation is especially probative given the prevalence of places of worship during that period.”
The 9th Circuit saw a similar problem with California’s defense of its ban on guns at public gatherings that require a permit. The state “argues that there is a national tradition of banning firearms at public gatherings in general and, because permitted gatherings are a subset of all public gatherings, the challenged provision falls within the tradition,” Graber notes. Because “public gatherings have existed since before the Founding,” she says, the state “must show an enduring national tradition with respect to public gatherings.” Yet “as with places of worship,” California “cannot point to a single regulation of public gatherings until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
California and Hawaii also prohibited guns in banks and other financial institutions. “Modern banks are roughly the same as banks in 1791,” Graber notes. “Defendants have not pointed to any evidence of a historical regulation—or even a more modern regulation—prohibiting the carry of firearms in banks. And Defendants have not pointed to a historical regulation prohibiting carry in another type of place analogous to a bank or financial institution.”
What about California’s ban on guns in hospitals and other medical facilities? “Medical facilities of some sort have existed since colonial times,” Graber writes. “As the district court here concluded, Defendant has not introduced any evidence of a historical ban on firearms in medical facilities of any type.”
A federal judge in Illinois recently rejected the state’s argument that public transit qualifies as a “sensitive place.” The 9th Circuit was similarly skeptical of California’s ban on guns in public transportation vehicles and facilities. Since “public transit did not exist in modern form until the 20th century,” Graber says, the state “has to point only to a relevantly similar historical regulation, not a dead ringer.” Like Illinois, California cited 19th century restrictions on guns imposed by private railroads.
“Our examination of the relevant regulations suggests that California’s law is too broad,” Graber writes. “The historical regulations are insufficiently analogous. In particular, most of the companies appeared to prohibit only carriage without pre-boarding inspection, carriage in the passenger cars (the firearms had to be checked as luggage), carriage of loaded firearms, or carriage of ‘dangerous’ weapons, such as rifles with bayonets attached. Moreover, several States enacted a ‘traveler’s exception,’ whereby persons traveling longer distances could carry their firearms on board.”
The 9th Circuit also upheld the part of a preliminary injunction that barred Hawaii from enforcing a ban on guns in parking areas shared by government buildings and private businesses. Hawaii’s law applies to “any building or office owned, leased, or used by the State or a county, and adjacent grounds and parking areas.” The state claimed that provision, contrary to its apparent meaning, covers only parking areas used exclusively by government buildings. But the 9th Circuit thought it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to worry that they would be prosecuted for violating the law if they carried their handguns in shared parking areas.
“On appeal, Defendant has not challenged meaningfully the Second Amendment analysis as to shared parking lots,” Graber writes. “We hold that, at least for the purpose of the preliminary injunction, Defendant has forfeited any argument as to the merits.”
It was not all good news for permit holders who want to carry guns in public for self-defense. Hawaii and California both established default rules that barred guns from private businesses without the owner’s consent. As a general matter, the 9th Circuit deemed such rules consistent with historical tradition. Graber cites two sets of precedents: anti-poaching laws that “prohibited the carry of firearms onto subsets of private land, such as plantations or enclosed lands,” and broader laws that banned “the carrying of firearms onto any private property without the owner’s consent.”
The record “contains no evidence whatsoever that these laws were viewed as controversial or constitutionally questionable,” Graber writes. “Instead, they were viewed as falling well within the colony’s or the State’s ordinary police power to regulate the default rules concerning private property.”
Graber nevertheless sees an important distinction between Hawaii’s law and California’s. Hawaii prohibits guns “unless the owner has posted signs, otherwise has given written consent, or has given oral consent,” she notes. California, by contrast, allows “the carry of firearms on private property only if the owner has consented in one specific way: posting signs of a particular size.” The latter law “falls outside the historical tradition,” Graber says. “We find no historical support for that stringent limitation.”
The 9th Circuit saw no constitutional problem with several other broad restrictions, including bans on guns in “parks and similar places.” Based on the current record, the plaintiffs “are unlikely to succeed in their assertion that the public green spaces that existed in 1791 [where guns were allowed] were akin to a modern park,” Graber writes. “As soon as green spaces began to take the shape of a modern park, in the middle of the 19th century, municipalities and other governments imposed bans on carrying firearms into the parks.” She offers a long list of 19th century examples, including parks in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Trenton, Spokane, Indianapolis, and Kansas City.
“Because many laws prohibited carrying firearms in parks, and the constitutionality of those laws was not in dispute, we agree with the Second Circuit and several district courts that the Nation’s historical tradition includes regulating firearms in parks,” Graber says. She rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that a historical tradition requires state laws or restrictions that applied to a large share of the national population. She notes that “the Supreme Court designated schools as sensitive places, even though less historical support justified that designation.”
The plaintiffs also argued that prohibiting guns in municipal parks is a far cry from banning them in “large, rural, and sparsely visited parks.” But since the plaintiffs mounted a facial challenge to the park bans, Graber says, they have to show those provisions are unconstitutional in every conceivable application.
The 9th Circuit extended its approval of gun bans in parks to “other, related places,” such as beaches and athletic facilities. It also concluded that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in their challenges to bans on guns in playgrounds and youth centers. “Playgrounds are found primarily at schools and parks,” Graber writes. “Both categories of places qualify as ‘sensitive places’ that have a historical tradition of firearm bans; by extension, there is a historical tradition of banning firearms at playgrounds. Plaintiffs do not present any separate argument concerning youth centers, which are akin to schools.”
The 9th Circuit also rejected the part of a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of Hawaii’s ban on guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. “In a long line of regulations dating back to the colonial era, colonies, states, and cities have regulated in ways reflecting their understanding that firearms and intoxication are a dangerous mix,” Graber says. Those regulations included laws that “prohibited retailers of liquor from keeping gunpowder,” banned people from carrying guns while intoxicated, and tried to prevent drunkenness among militia members. Subsequent laws, enacted in the 19th century, “broadly prohibited the carry of firearms at ballrooms and at social gatherings.” A few local and state laws specifically prohibited guns in bars and other locations where alcohol was served, Graber says, and “no evidence in the record suggests that anyone disputed the constitutionality of those laws.”
The 9th Circuit goes further, blessing state bans on guns in “places of amusement” such as casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, museums, and libraries. “Both before and shortly following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, cities, states, and territories prohibited firearms at a wide range of places for social gathering and amusement,” Graber says, including ballrooms, public parties, fairs, race courses, circuses, exhibitions, and “place where persons are assembled for educational, literary or scientific purposes.” She notes that “state court decisions at the time rejected arguments that the provisions conflicted with the Second Amendment.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a plaintiff in the California case, welcomed the parts of the 9th Circuit’s ruling that rejected the state’s defense of certain location-specific gun restrictions. “This partially favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit shows how far we’ve come over the past decade,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “But this case, and our work to restore the right to bear arms, is far from over. FPC will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can fully exercise their right to carry in California and throughout the United States.”
Hawaii
14 Hikers Arrested For Accessing Controversial WW2 Era Stairs in Hawaii
![14 Hikers Arrested For Accessing Controversial WW2 Era Stairs in Hawaii 14 Hikers Arrested For Accessing Controversial WW2 Era Stairs in Hawaii](https://unofficialnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Screenshot-2024-09-09-at-07.19.15.jpg)
Built during World War II by the US Navy and abandoned shortly there after, the Haiku Stairs on the island of Oahu have become a point of contention between locals and the state officials in the process of having them removed.
Closed to the public in 1987, the 4,000 metal steps that lead to the top of 2,800-foot mountain. Known as “The Stairway To Heaven” the vestige of WW2 have recently regained popularity in the age of social media.
The Honolulu City Council voted to remove the stairs in 2021 but the work has been slow. The stairs can only be removed in sections and then require a helicopter to airlift them off the mountain.
This week 14 hikers were arrested for accessing the stairs and charged with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor crime punishable with up to 30 days in jail. A local organization named Friends of the Haiku Stairs have mounted a resistance to the stairs demolition and successfully received an injunction pending their ongoing lawsuit.
Friends of the Haiku Stairs view the unique landmark as a “historic monument that island residents have treasured for generations” and quickly point out that there have been zero deaths or serious injuries as a result of a fall and zero lawsuits to the city in its 80 years of existence.
- Zero deaths or serious injuries as a result of a fall
- Zero lawsuits to the City in 80 years
A local group called Friends of the Haiku Stairs is pushing back against the stairs’ removal, arguing that the $2.5 million process is too expensive.
Located in a remote area of Kaneohe, the only way to access the stairs is via a dangerous and unsanctioned hike.
“It’s incredibly disrespectful and self-centered for anyone to be on the Haiku Stairs, or on the Middle Ridge Trail, when it’s been made abundantly clear that these areas are off-limits for safety and natural resource protection reasons,” Jason Redulla, chief of Hawaii’s Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE) said in a statement, which bore the ominous warning that “someone is going to get hurt or killed.”
According to DOCARE, all the people arrested in the past week have been charged with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor that can result in up to 30 days in jail. Eight of the 14 were arrested on September 3, although it’s not clear if they were hiking together.
“It is dangerous for people to enter the construction zone and dangerous for them to try to descend the ridge. They need to think about the consequences if someone gets hurt, or worse, and needs rescue. It is a difficult place for first responders to reach, which could delay medical treatment,” said Redulla.
The Haiku Stairs, sometimes called the “stairway to heaven,” were closed to the public in 1987. But social media has brought the unlikely destination a degree of fame, with intrepid YouTubers and Instagrammers raving about the gorgeous views from atop the 2,800-foot mountain trail, with the stairs sometimes appearing to disappear into the mist above.
According to DOCARE, the hikers used climbing ropes to get to the staircase.
The stairs’ fame has brought headaches for the local community, including trespassers, added security costs and risky rescues of hikers who have been injured in the remote area.
In 2021, the Honolulu City Council voted to remove the Haiku Stairs. The work has been done in pieces, with one section of the stairs at a time detached from the side of the mountain and then removed by helicopter.
A local group called Friends of the Haiku Stairs is pushing back against the stairs’ removal, arguing that the $2.5 million process is too expensive.
Some of the deconstruction work had been completed when the Hawaii Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction earlier this year.
HIKERS ARRESTED AFTER ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO HA‘IKŪ STAIRS CONSTRUCTION ZONE
Officials Fear Someone is Going to Get Hurt or Killed
(HONOLULU) – 14 hikers have been arrested since last Thursday on the Kāne‘ohe side of the Ha‘ikū Stairs by the Honolulu Police Department, which then alerted the DLNR Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DOCARE). Eight of the 14 were arrested this morning. They all face criminal trespassing charges.
HPD informed DLNR that the hikers reached the top of the stairs via the Middle Ridge Trail in the Moanalua Section of the Honolulu Watershed Forest Reserve. DLNR on Friday announced the reopening of this section with a warning for people to stay off the Middle Ridge Trail. It is not a state-sanctioned trail and using it to reach the top of the stairs is illegal and dangerous.
While deconstruction of the entire stairs is on hold due to litigation, several modules comprising numerous stair cleats that secure the stair modules to the hillside have already been removed by helicopter. The hikers who were arrested used ropes from the top of the Middle Ridge Trail to get down to where stairs still cling to the side of the mountain.
DOCARE Chief Jason Redulla said, “It is dangerous for people to enter the construction zone and dangerous for them to try to descend the ridge. They need to think about the consequences if someone gets hurt, or worse, and needs rescue. It is a difficult place for first responders to reach, which could delay medical treatment. Plus, it’s incredibly disrespectful and self-centered for anyone to be on the Ha‘ikū Stairs, or on the Middle Ridge Trail, when it’s been made abundantly clear that these areas are off-limits for safety and natural resource protection reasons. They fail to consider not only the risks they’re taking, but the risks emergency teams face when having to rescue people who are breaking the law.”
About Friends of the Haiku Stairs:
Our mission is to protect the historic Ha’ikū Stairs for current and future generations. By partnering with local grassroots stakeholders and the community, we can realize a shared vision of stewardship for Ha’ikū Valley through managed access solutions.
We need support, either through donations, signing the petition or volunteering, so the administration will not be able to hide behind backdoor politics and deals. The more voices heard, the stronger the impact. We can make a difference, together.
If you would like to save the Haʻikū Stairs, please consider donating through direct donations, membership or through the purchase of merchandise from our store. All proceeds directly support our mission to halt destruction and are tax deductible.
Why Save Haʻikū Stairs?
- They are an iconic landmark and historic monument that island residents have treasured for generations
- It is one of the safest hikes on the island:
- Zero deaths or serious injuries as a result of a fall
- Zero lawsuits to the City in 80 years
- Cost of removal could exceed $10 million with permitting, mitigation and remediation
- Removal could also cause:
- Serious harm to endangered species living in critical habitats around the Stairs
- Soil runoff harming the downstream watershed leading into Kāne‘ohe Bay
- Public testimony and opinion polls clearly show the majority of Oʻahu residents support reopening the Stairs under managed access
- Closing the Stairs diverts hikers to the Moanalua “back way,” a dangerous route that has led to several HFD rescues
- People will still climb the ridge even without the Stairs
- The City plans to leave behind support structures which climbers will likely attach ropes to on their way to the summit, increasing safety risks and environmental harm
- Evidence suggests there may be a secret backroom deal to transfer the Stairs to Kualoa Ranch. Don’t let the City give away public property
![](https://i0.wp.com/unofficialnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/449011240_18130385692346003_2611122079011630066_n.jpg?resize=780%2C520&ssl=1)
![](https://i0.wp.com/unofficialnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/449011240_18130385692346003_2611122079011630066_n.jpg?resize=780%2C520&ssl=1)
images from FriendsofHaikuStairs
More From Unofficial Networks
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump impersonates Elon Musk talking about rockets: ‘I’m doing a new stainless steel hub’
-
World1 week ago
Locals survey damage after flooding in eastern Romania
-
World1 week ago
Taiwan court orders release of ex-Taipei mayor arrested in corruption probe
-
World5 days ago
Meloni says 'we are making history' as Italy’s FDI reviews progress
-
World1 week ago
Seven EU members hadn’t received any post-Covid funding by end-2023
-
Politics1 week ago
Gold Star families slam Kamala Harris for 'playing politics' over Trump's visit to Arlington National Cemetery
-
World1 week ago
Oasis fans struggle to secure tickets for band’s reunion tour
-
Politics1 week ago
Michigan becomes a top GOP Senate target as Mike Rogers ties with Dem opponent among older voters