Enriques most dangerous politician in generations? Dishonest Politician on Verge of Reelection? part 4

What happened at UH Hilo?
Enriques was hired as an assistant volleyball coach at UH Hilo in 2000. He brought three young women from his Oregon summer team camp on scholarships to UH Hilo. They stayed. He lasted only one season. Creagan, who is still a student at UH Hilo has been authorized by Ke Kalahea, the student newspaper, to write an investigative story focusing on how Enriques was able to be hired with his past history of sexual transgressions, and why he was terminated from that position (or perhaps again allowed to “resign for personal reasons”).
How did Enriques get coaching jobs at UH Hilo, Konawaena, Ka’u, and Kamehameha with his OSU history? Did he use the Enriques version of honesty? (“They didn’t find out, so I didn’t tell them about it”)
2004 Incident at Punalu’u
Pele Hanoa recounted to Creagan an episode involving Enriques that occurred during the summer of 2004 at Punalu’u beach. Hanoa’s daughter and others ran a summer program for young girls, some 14 or 15. During a break these girls would go down to the beach. They returned from the beach and told Pele’s daughter that they had been accosted by Enriques and encouraged to “take their tops off” among other remarks. The police were called and Officer Kenneth Ishii responded. He took a report from the women and then went to talk with Enriques. He returned to the women saying that Enriques had denied everything. The young girls were then interviewed and confirmed to Officer Ishii what Enriques had said and done. According to Hanoa, Ishii then went to Enriques and told him to not be on the beach when the young girls were present. While Hanoa believes Officer Ishii took written notes she was unable to confirm that a police report was ever written. (Ed. Watch for more details in our next issue – online at council district6yellowpress.com).
Jail for You, Cheap Water for His Supporters.
(Ed.: this story is on perhaps a lighter note, if you consider jail time for taking water a lighter note than sexual transgressions)
On April 7, 2010 Enriques submitted Bill 239 to the council which in the middle of the worst drought Hawaii County had experienced in decades proposed to limit the amount of water taken from public spigots and to allow JAIL TIME for taking more than 250 gallons!
He proposed to add an article to Chapter 29 of the Hawaii County Code entitled “Article 2. Public Water spigots. Section 29-6 Penalty. reads:
“Any person convicted of any offense under this article shall be sentenced to pay a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of not more than thirty days.” Fortunately his bill did not pass.

In the meantime he supports the efforts of the Ka’u Agricultural Water Cooperative District (representing the largest developers in Ka’u) to privatize water sources on ceded lands, thereby depriving the Hawaiian Home Lands and Office of Hawaiian Affairs of appropriate compensation.
Connecting the Dots:
This newsletter started as a way to share information I have discovered about Guy Enriques that I feel would be useful for the voters of council district 6. I viewed gathering this information as a process of finding “dots” of information. Most of these dots are “facts” as is the book article (information provided by a reliable source, and hopefully confirmed by an independent and equally reliable source.) Some dots such as Enrique’s alleged misappropriation of money from a school at which he worked, and his filing of false insurance claims are less well substantiated, but I believe the allegations are true. I have expanded this effort to a website:
www.councildistrict6yellowpress.com
Future issues of the yellow press, which will cover issues in addition to politics in Ka’u, will be found at that website along with a blog. There is also an email address to which information about “dots” you know about can be transmitted:

In this news letter I am not only presenting you the “dots” I have found, but I am connecting those dots into pictures. These pictures involve interpreting those dots and reflect my opinion on how those dots are connected. The pictures that emerge of Enriques are rather disturbing but I strongly believe they are valid. On the one hand he has a lifelong string of dots forming a picture of an unethical and dishonest person, a pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. A second string of dots form a picture of a sexual predator. These two pictures actually merge if we consider Enriques to have a personality disorder which at this point I would call “Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with elements of Antisocial Personality Disorder (also known as sociopathy or psychopathy) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder”. (Ed.: see web site for further discussion)
Viewed in this light it means Enriques may have great difficulty in being honest and ethical and controlling his sexual impulses.
We should have compassion for him; we should encourage him to seek help. But he should not have unsupervised access to our community’s young girls and women and WE SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR HIM!