<Begin Segment 5>

EK: So, Bill, could you continue talking about the challenges that were faced given the lack of documentation for Hawaii claimants?

BK: I think one of the major challenges for the Office of Redress as well as the JACL is that, how do you verify those who were evacuated? So unlike the internment cases where there were camp rosters and you could basically cross check the camp roster with a person's identity, there was nothing like that for the evacuees. Because the evacuees basically, immediately after Pearl Harbor, the military at gunpoint literally came to their homes and kicked them out of their homes. And so there was no roster, there was no way to verify whether or not they lived there, or that they got displaced. So that was a big issue in addressing these unique cases. ORA really had to look at how they were going to handle these unique cases to ultimately address the issue of eligibility.

EK: Right. I recall that ORA was looking at whether someone was evacuated, relocated or interned based on federal government actions, so the two prongs that had to be satisfied: were they evacuated, which we often did not have documentation in Hawaii, and was it by government action as opposed to just general wartime hysteria or whatnot. Are there particular cases that you recall that were really challenging or that you recall that you were involved with that took a while given these challenges?

BK: Well, actually, the first cases that were passed, which was kind of reflective of the additional complexity of it was the Lualualei cases. Because these were Japanese American farmers who were displaced, but they were, basically at night they were kicked out of their homes, but during the day they were let in. And it was suspected that the reason why they were able to come in during the day was because they were farmers, and they were important for the food production of Hawaii's economy. So although they were evacuated, which is, basically they were deprived of their civil liberties, they were able to come in during the day. But the government also had determined that because they weren't able to stay during that night, that they would be eligible under the act. So it was these really neat cases that kind of unfolded and really every single location, and there were twenty-three of them, had a twist to it. And my recollection was that, I think in the earlier cases like Lualualei, there were a listing of families who were actually displaced. So there were some checks and balances. As these cases unfold and these other locations became, we had to deal with, there are really no records whatsoever. And that was very, very challenging for both ORA and the JACL.

EK: Could you talk a little bit about the standard of review being the benefit of the doubt and how some of these areas were established as eligible despite the lack of documentation?

BK: Yeah. So I think in the law itself, the Office of Redress Administration had to be accurate in who they were compensating that was paramount. So because there were no internment logs, they had to really be careful about how do you make sure that they were actually evacuated. So the government did a couple things. They required an affidavit or documentation that you actually lived there. So they had required for any potential evacuee that they had to sign a sworn statement that they actually lived there, that the government actually did come in and force the evacuation. And that had to be verified by a couple witnesses to be able to say and verify that they were, actually lived there and were displaced. Now, because there was no documentation, there was a provision in the act that the claimant had really the benefit of the doubt. So the standard wasn't as high as the criminal standards which is beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt. So if there was any kind of question, it was really the claimant that had, was given the benefit of the doubt if there was a question as to whether they would be eligible or not. And that was very important for JACL and the claimants because to be able to have a written affidavit, a sworn statement and verified by two witnesses, that was sufficient and for the government to actually provide redress to them.

<End Segment 5> - Copyright © 2019 Emi Kuboyama. All Rights Reserved.