Category Archives: Consumer issues

Cautionary tales of AI from a longtime friend

I’m taking the liberty of promoting this comment by Charles Smith to its own post. We’ve known each other for about 50 years, and he’s always the source of good insights. His provides a number of important links describing issues and/or limits of AI, which are very useful in understanding our relationship to these new systems.

Thanks, Chuck!

And I highly recommend his Of Two Minds blog.

Ian, check out this Substack post by a journalist regarding her experience with ChatGPT. https://substack.com/home/post/p-164719684
Diabolus Ex Machina: ChatGPT as psychopath.
Read the whole essay, it’s sobering.

This is also worth reading:
https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/
Your Brain on ChatGPT (mit.edu)
Here is a summary:
https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills, According to a New MIT Study

Anecdotally, I receive email from very intelligent readers who go down wormholes with AI chatbots, accumulating hundreds or even thousands of pages of “conversations.” The illusion of “intelligence” is bewitching because the chatbot’s apparent mastery of natural language is so compelling.

If nothing else brings us up short, there’s this: the AI chatbot Claude (Anthropic) resorts to blackmailing its programmers when threatened with disconnection:

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/anthropics-latest-ai-model-threatened-engineers-blackmail-avoid-shutdown
Anthropic’s Latest AI Model Threatened Engineers With Blackmail To Avoid Shutdown

This is a good summary of LLM’s fundamental limitations.

https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/responsible-lie-how-ai-sells-conviction-without-truth
The Responsible Lie: How AI Sells Conviction Without Truth

Thanks for posting your experiences with Gemini and NotebookLLM–
Chuck (Charles Smith)

Whistleblower Complaint Targets Top Officials at the Public Utilities Commission

The State Senate Committee On Commerce And Consumer Protection, chaired by Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole, has an interim hearing scheduled this morning at 9:30, open in person and by live stream on the Senate YouTube channel.

It looks like a lot of energy policy wonk stuff.

In 2018, the Legislature passed the Hawaii Ratepayer Protection Act, directing the PUC to implement performance-based regulation (PBR), which took effect in 2021 for a five-year term. The PBR framework uses alternative regulatory mechanisms to align utility incentives with performance and policy goals. This briefing will provide an update on the framework and its implications on electrical utilities and rate payers in the future.

But a tip last night suggested I take a good look at the agenda.

And there’s the “easter egg” waiting to be found.

Item #4: Briefing on PUC Whistleblower Complaint Process

And, there attached to the other briefing materials regarding the PUC’s performance-based regulation of Hawaiian Electric, is a 6-page complaint by an anonymous whistleblower which describes disarray and disfunction in an important part of the agency, and pointing fingers at the current PUC chair, Leo Asuncion, and the recently appointed Chief of Policy and Research, Randy Baldemor.

The inclusion of a discussion of the whistleblower complaint process on the hearing agenda, coupled with disclosure of the complaint among the public briefing materials, shows the committee is taking this complaint seriously and not trying to sweep it under the proverbial rug.

Here are some excerpts from the whistleblower complaint. The full letter appears below.

• As you are aware, the Public Utilities Commission plays a critical role in safeguarding the reliability and safety of Hawaii’s electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities, as well as Young Brothers; ensuring the affordability and fairness of utility rates; overseeing HECO’s securitization and liability cap; and advancing Hawaii’s renewable energy goals.

However, the Commission’s ability to carry out this mission is currently being undermined by a toxic and ineffective work environment caused by the new Chief of Policy and Research, Randy Baldemor. We ask that the internal operations of the PUC be promptly and thoroughly investigated, and corrective action taken to address serious ethical and human resources concerns.

• At the PUC’s annual holiday party in December 2024, Chair Leo Asuncion announced that his friend, Randy Baldemor, would be the new Chief of Policy and Research—the top technical and policy advisor for the three Commissioners. Leo told everyone that Randy also lives in Hawaii Kai and they barbeque together with HECO executives.

• It was a running joke at the PUC-new minimum qualification requirements for Chief – “likes to barbecue with Leo and HECO execs” and “lives by Chair Asuncion in Hawaii Kai.”

• The PUC Chair, Leo Asuncion, has created an environment where staff feel unable to share feedback, as he has been unreceptive to previous concerns and remains closed off to input. This has led to a tense atmosphere, where employees have no safe internal channels for raising concerns without retaliation.

• Randy had zero experience in public utility regulation.’ He has zero experience working in electric, gas, water, wastewater, and/or telecommunications industries. He has zero experience with Young Brothers. He has also clearly demonstrated he has zero knowledge of utility regulation and no understanding of utility systems and technologies. Accordingly, he is incapable of leading his team and appropriately
advising the Commission on all regulated industry policy matters [which is a primary job requirement].

• He is not capable of performing the duties of the Chief of Policy and Research due to his complete lack of regulatory and industry experience and apparent disinterest in learning about utilities.

• As COO of HTA, Randy was investigated by the Hawaii State Ethics Commission for accepting multiple courtesy upgrades to business class flights and hotel accommodations while traveling on official state business. He directed staff to solicit these upgrades. (See: Resolution of Charge 2017-4 at https://files.hawaii.gov/ethics/advice/ROC2017-4.pdf)

Of the four people fined, Randy received the biggest fine [$6,000], because he directed staff to seek upgrades for him. The Ethics Commission apparently specifically chose not to fine HTA staff directed by Randy to seek upgrades.

An HTA staff person stated: “Anyone who questioned Randy or George got fired or was asked to resign.

• No one wants to question Randy because of his temper.

• To verify the concerns raised in this letter, the legislature could conduct anonymous interviews with those who work most closely with Randy. This includes his 10 staff in the Policy Branch and many of the 10 staff attorneys, who can all confirm his unprofessional conduct and lack of qualifications.

The person who tipped me to the complaint commented: “Wasn’t me but I agree! Only scratches the surface.”

Hawaii Public Utilities Commission whistleblower complaint by Ian Lind on Scribd

Former Honolulu attorney indicted in alleged $750K probate fraud

[Correction: This post originally estimated the total amount involved in this fraud case at $1.5 million. This has been reduced to $750 based on information in a June 24 press release by the Office of the Attorney General.]

Robert Earl Chapman, a former managing partner at one of Hawaii’s largest law firms, has been indicted on 22 counts including forgery, theft, and identity theft in connection with an alleged scheme to seize control of about $750,000 from a deceased Honolulu resident’s estate.

Chapman, a graduate of the University of Maryland law school, was licensed to practice law in Hawaii in 1980. He became a named partner in the firm, then known as Stanton, Clay, Tom & Chapman, Attorneys At Law, in 1987, and later served as managing director of the firm, then known as Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & Nervell. He resigned from the practice of law in lieu of discipline in 2022.

The grand jury indictment was filed in Honolulu’s First Circuit Court on Friday morning, June 20, by the Office of the Attorney General. A Grand Jury Bench Warrant set bail at $1 million, and Chapman posted a $1 million bond after the warrant was served on Saturday afternoon.

A grand jury indictment is a one-sided process, based only on the prosecutors’ version of events and interpretation of the evidence. It means that the grand jury believed there was enough evidence to bring charges, but is not proof that any crimes have occurred.

Court records do not indicate whether Chapman has retained an attorney, and he has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the charges or enter a plea in the case.

According to the indictment, Chapman allegedly accessed confidential personal information of Robert Boulette without authorization on or about October 19, 2018. Then, “with intent to defraud,” Chapman allegedly created or altered what “purported to be the will and codicil of Robert Boulette” which he then used to take control of the accounts and properties making up Boulette’s estate.

None of the offense were “discovered prior to January 13, 2023, by either an aggrieved party or a person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party,” the indictment states.

Boulette died in Honolulu in November 2016 at age 77. Originally from Portland, Oregon, Boulette served in the Navy and later worked for the Naval Audit Service until his retirement, according to an obituary in the Portland Oregonian newspaper. After retiring in the mid-1990s, Boulette made Honolulu his home, but traveled extensively.

Neither Chapman nor his law firm represented Boulette in any court case prior to his death, court records show. However, Chapman handled many estates and trusts, and was the contact person in numerous probate proceedings, according to a review of published legal notices. The indictment does not indicate where or how Chapman accessed Boulette’s confidential personal information, and whether the information was taken from the firm’s own records.

On October 24, 2018, Chapman filed an application to be named personal representative and to proceed with informal probate of Boulette’s will and a codicil amending the will, court records show. Informal probate usually sidesteps court supervision, which would have been an advantage if the intent was to defraud Boulette’s estate. The indictment alleges either or both of the documents, the will and codicil, were fraudulently created or altered, but does not provide further specifics. Legal notices of Chapman’s application were published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on three consecutive Thursdays in November 2018.

The indictment alleges Chapman then used the fraudulent documents to gain control over Boulette’s accounts and property with a total value of close to $750,000 that Boulette had bequeathed to the Make a Wish Foundation, Elderhostel Inc., and the Portland State University Alumni Association.

The indictment does not identify the specific accounts or properties Chapman is alleged to have improperly controlled, although it reports their respective values.

However, real estate records show that at the time of Boulette’s death in late 2016, he owned a small 1 bedroom-1 bath apartment in the Nuuanu Brookside condominium. On May 29, 2020, two years after Chapman applied to serve as the personal representative of Boulette’s estate, the leasehold apartment was transferred from Boulette’s estate to a new entity, NuBrook LLC.

State business registration records show NuBrook LLC had been registered to do business just three weeks before it took title to Boulette’s interest in the Brookside condominium. Chapman was listed as NuBrook’s sole member and manager, and was registered at the address of Chapman’s law firm. Chapman signed the assignment of lease document as the personal representative of Boulette’s estate, and as manager of NuBrook LLC.

In May 2023, the apartment was sold to a private buyer for $395,000, real estate records show.

This appears to be the transaction corresponds to Count 22 of the indictment, which charges Chapman with first degree theft for allegedly diverting $362,566.13 from Boulette’s estate to his own benefit in 2023. The amount may represent the net selling price of the Nuuanu Brookside apartment after paying fees and costs of the sale.

The charges against Chapman appear to mirror those detailed in the 2022 case brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which ended Chapman’s legal career. In that case, which did not involve criminal charges, Chapman admitted to the misconduct.

ODC launched its investigation after receiving a complaint alleging Chapman had “wrongfully attempted to lay claim to approximately $2,000,000.00 in abandoned property held by the Hawai’i Department of Budget and Finance….”

The abandoned property belonged to a former client whose company he had represented in the 1980s. He had never met the client, and had not even had any indirect contact with her for three decades. After questions were raised about Chapman’s application to claim the property on behalf of the client, a handwriting analyst retained by the Attorney General’s office determined that a power of attorney Chapman used in an attempt to legitimate his claim was a forgery.

ODC completed its investigation and initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against Chapman in October 2022. A month later, Chapman submitted a legal declaration admitting the allegations were true and offering to resign in lieu of discipline while the charges against him were pending. ODC then filed a petition in open court asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to approve Chapman’s request, which made public its previously confidential 37-page petition for discipline spelling out the allegations and evidence.

The Supreme Court agreed, finding Chapman’s misconduct had entailed “egregious violations” of the court’s Rules of Professional Conduct. No criminal charges were filed in that case.

Two subsequent lawsuits were later filed against Chapman and his former firm by former clients alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and other offenses. Both ended with confidential settlements.

Also see:

Fraud allegations lead to resignation of prominent business attorney,” iLind.net, December 29, 2022

News media turn a blind eye to attorney misdeeds,” iLind.net, January 17 2023

Remember the Office of the Ombudsman?

As we were nearing the end of our week-long visit to Portland, Oregon, something brought Hawaii’s Office of the Ombudsman to mind. Back in the early 1990s when I was publishing a monthly newsletter about politics and money, and later while an investigative reporter for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, I regularly browsed the Ombudsman’s annual reports for story ideas. It always included a table showing the number of complaints involving each along with the number and/or percent of sustained complaints, helping to zero in on those departments with the most problems.

But I got out of the habit of checking those annual reports a number of years ago, and realized that I haven’t seen or heard much of anything about the Ombudsman in a long time.

With time on my hands during the long travel day heading back to Honolulu, I took another look.

In case you’re not familiar with Hawaii’s Office of the Ombudsman, it is an independent legislative agency created to investigate complaints about executive branch departments and agencies. Hawaii was the first state in the country to establish an ombudsman via a bill passed by the Legislature in 1967. The first ombudsman, Herman Doi, was appointed two years later.

The kinds of things the ombudsman is able to investigate are defined by state law (Chapter 96 Hawaii Revised Statutes).

§96-8 Appropriate subjects for investigation. An appropriate subject for investigation is an administrative act of an agency which might be:

(1) Contrary to law;

(2) Unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or unnecessarily discriminatory, even though in accordance with law;

(3) Based on a mistake of fact;

(4) Based on improper or irrelevant grounds;

(5) Unaccompanied by an adequate statement of reasons;

(6) Performed in an inefficient manner; or

(7) Otherwise erroneous.

The ombudsman may investigate to find an appropriate remedy. [L 1967, c 306, §9; HRS §96-8]

During this year’s legislative session, Ombudsman Robin Matsunaga submitted written testimony briefly describing the office and its mission.

The Office of the Ombudsman was created to investigate the administrative acts of state executive branch and county government agencies of the State of Hawaii. We learn of possible erroneous administrative actions and decisions primarily through complaints that are filed with our office by residents and visitors who are impacted by these agencies. We conduct our investigations independently and impartially, and not as an advocate of either the complainant or the agency. We do not have authority to overturn an agency’s decision or to compel an agency to take corrective action, but if we find that an agency has acted erroneously, unfairly, or unreasonably, we can make recommendations for corrective action to the agency. Although we do not substantiate every complaint that we investigate, by independently and impartially investigating, we level the playing field for citizens who have complaints about their government and ensure that they are being treated lawfully, fairly, and reasonably. We believe that in doing so, we improve the level of trust that citizens have in their government.

While most issues come as complaints or requests for information from the public, the ombudsman is also authorized to pursue investigations on its own initiative if the ombudsman “reasonably believes that an appropriate subject for investigation” exists.

My first stop was Newspapers.com, where I did a quick search of for Hawaii news stories containing the words “Ombudsman.” I went back a dozen years, and found almost nothing substantive about the office or any of its investigations. That confirmed my impression that the office has been essentially invisible for years, whether by design or not. It makes me wonder where people learn that the ombudsman’s office is a resource for their complaints about public employees or services.

Next: Comments on the most recent annual report