Did anyone go?

Did anyone go?

I didn't go and submit my live oral testimony for the reasons outlined in my response #11 above: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=32036.msg283960#msg283960

The request for funding the outside counsel hire was sent back to corporation counsel for a re-write and thus removed from the agenda. I was told on the phone that Lorraine Martin, supervisor of litigation, said that the request would be on the council agenda "in September". There are two council meetings in September, 5th (Hilo) and 19th (Kona). The agendas are published six days prior to the meetings, at approximately 8:30 AM. I will be looking for them at that time. If/when the funding request is on the agenda, I will be either at the meeting Hilo), or submitting my oral testimony via live video (if the meeting is in Kona).

Just a heads up: I'm only allowed three minutes, but I'm not going to be saying anything nice about the state, the county, the police department,  the corporation counsel, the mayor, or the council itself. Should go over real well.

I talked to the County lawyer and he said

The retention of outside counsel was postponed until the September 5 meeting.

According to this: http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/, the state has a couple of attorneys from D.C. involved.

According to this: http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/, the state has a couple of attorneys from D.C. involved.

watch out, they're "Super Lawyers"

watch out, they're "Super Lawyers"

On permanent retainer to György Schwartz

It's on. Page 3. [Note: It's resolution 666... I'm just sayin'...] If I try to copy it the format is so messed up I don't want to spend the time to fix it. Read it for yourself. I'm not sure exactly what that language means. I do see that it requires a 2/3 vote of "all members", and since Ruggles isn't voting anymore we'd need at least two three NO votes to defeat it. 9 AM, Wednesday, September 5th in Hilo.

http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/0/doc/965054/Page1.aspx

EDIT:

Res. 666-18:        AUTHORIZES THE EMPLOYMENT OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY AS PART OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF HAWAII TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY OF HAWAII AND NAMED COUNTY OFFICIALS IN YOUNG VERSUS STATE OF HAWAII,
                     NO. 12-17808
                     Would allow the County to enter into an agreement with the State of Hawaii to retain the legal services of Mr. Neal Katyal as special counsel, with the State to pay all fees and costs.  The County desires to retain special counsel to seek an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of its decision published on July 24, 2018, finding that there is a constitutional right to open carry firearms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and that a portion of Section 134-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
                                    Reference:      Comm. 1041
                                    Intr. by:    Ms. David (B/R)
                                    Waived:    FC
                                    Note:        Requires 2/3 vote of the entire membership, pursuant to Section 6-5.5            Hawaii County Charter

* * * * *
So apparently the county wouldn't be using any county funds to finance it... "just" our state taxpayer dollars.

So apparently the county wouldn't be using any county funds to finance it... "just" our state taxpayer dollars.

I'll use this for my gun show table next month.  Your tax money is being used to ban public carry.

I'll use this for my gun show table next month.  Your tax money is being used to ban public carry.

Your tax money is continuing to be used in even greater amounts to continue the ban on public carry.

Fixed it.

I've had no luck thus far (duh!) trying to get any state agency or person to tell me about the contract with the D.C. law firm and how much taxpayer money is or will be spent. Transparency. Democrats. Zero.

Hawaii County Council update:

They passed the bill unanimously, 8-0 (one absent).

They asked a few non-substantive questions of attorney Horowitz, who "argued" before the O'Scannlain panel for the county. They mostly wanted to be sure the county wasn't going to be on the hook for any money to hire the "special counsel". Not one single word about why the county and the county employees sued ought to be let of the hook.

Not really worth watching unless you want to be disgusted by their total lack of interest in the actual issue, as opposed to making sure they weren't getting charged for anything. But just in case:

video: http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com/Vie....php?view_id=1
(beneath "Archived Videos", click "Hawaii County Council". Today's meeting is at the top of the list, Sept. 5.)

The county streaming feed is really really slow, so it might take a while to get to the "discussion" which is at 2h 28m 50sec

My comment is at 1:06:34. The person immediately prior to me, at 1:03:23, entered three minutes of MomsDemand/Giffords/Brady et al. talking points... 

A couple of other people did comment after I left, but none of them seemed to understand what this resolution was for (entering into an agreement to have special counsel hired by the state represent all the county parties at no cost to the state). More about "don't waste money" (but the county council has no input on the state spending money).

Speaking of which, I have both calls and emails into the governor's office and the AG's office asking for details about the costs involved. Haven't heard back yet.

 

They should pass a law that what ever 1 guy spends on the atty, the responding party cant exceed that. So in this case, hawaii cant get a million dollar atty.

Even the playing field.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Here's a better direct link to the video. http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=1185.  The lady goes over suicide stats a lot which has nothing to do with public carry.

Other testimonies
1:57
2:05:30



Should've brought up that the county will still have to pay attorney's fees to Beck and Stamboulieh if they lose.  Those fees will rise sharply with each appeal and will cost $1million+ if we win at SCOTUS.

They will win if, or should I say, when Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

Should've brought up that the county will still have to pay attorney's fees to Beck and Stamboulieh if they lose.  Those fees will rise sharply with each appeal and will cost $1million+ if we win at SCOTUS.

That would have made no difference in the argument nor the vote because 1. the county council has no say at all in what the state will do, and 2. the state will likely file for en banc whether the county would do so separately or not, so even if the county were to not file for en banc, the state still would and thus subject the county to the same financial liability in case of loss as if the county was participating, and 3. everything the Office of the Corporation Counsel said in their letter to the council re resolution 666 was that the reason the county should approve the intergovernmental agreement was that both the state and county would file for en banc separately if not together and the county doesn't have the "legal expertise"to pursue the case at the en banc and cert level on its own, and 4. the county may or may not have to payout in the event of an eventual loss because their financial liability may be covered by the state.