http://ilind.net/2007/11/29/thursdayap-presses-for-awana-disclosures-while-most-local-media-just-watch-dueling-headlines-on-foreclosure-rate-and-snow-in-the-islands/ Ian Lind • Online daily from Kaaawa, Hawaii Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:21:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://ilind.net/2007/11/29/thursdayap-presses-for-awana-disclosures-while-most-local-media-just-watch-dueling-headlines-on-foreclosure-rate-and-snow-in-the-islands/comment-page-1/#comment-421 Mighty Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:10:32 +0000 http://ilind.net/2007/11/29/thursdayap-presses-for-awana-disclosures-while-most-local-media-just-watch-dueling-headlines-on-foreclosure-rate-and-snow-in-the-islands/#comment-421 Regarding the release of the Awana emails: Face it, the emails will never be released. Why? Because US Attorney Ed Kubo promised RA they the public would never find out details regarding this case from his office. Despite the his identity is known, the US Attorney's office has never confirmed that he was the complainant. The release of the emails would violate this underlying understanding. Their resistance to the release of the evidence is therefore understandable. On the otherhand the public should feel a sense of outrage at the thought that the government and the US Attorney's office might actually be protecting a criminal. While some would maintain that he was a victim, the sentence imposed on the criminal seems to indicate that the crime was of a relatively petty nature. Compare the sentence given to Paktar vs. the sentence given to men recently convicted of electronic enticement of minor child for sexual purposes in our state courts recently. The US Attorney's office has a real problem. If the federal court releases the emails, they may provide evidence of a more serious crime committed by the "victim" in this case. Regarding the release of the Awana emails: Face it, the emails will never be released. Why? Because US Attorney Ed Kubo promised RA they the public would never find out details regarding this case from his office. Despite the his identity is known, the US Attorney’s office has never confirmed that he was the complainant. The release of the emails would violate this underlying understanding. Their resistance to the release of the evidence is therefore understandable. On the otherhand the public should feel a sense of outrage at the thought that the government and the US Attorney’s office might actually be protecting a criminal. While some would maintain that he was a victim, the sentence imposed on the criminal seems to indicate that the crime was of a relatively petty nature. Compare the sentence given to Paktar vs. the sentence given to men recently convicted of electronic enticement of minor child for sexual purposes in our state courts recently. The US Attorney’s office has a real problem. If the federal court releases the emails, they may provide evidence of a more serious crime committed by the “victim” in this case.

]]>