Just as I suspected, the attorney general would just pass the buck. Have one of his hunch man do his dirty work.

Mr. Schick,
 
I am in receipt of your email dated July 3, 2016, inquiring about SB 2954 which has recently been signed by Governor Ige.  Unfortunately, the Attorney General cannot provide legal advice to private citizens.  As provided by statute:
 
The department shall administer and render state legal services, including furnishing of written legal opinions to the governor, legislature, and such state departments and officers as the governor may direct; represent the State in all civil actions in which the State is a party; approve as to legality and form all documents relating to the acquisition of any land or interest in lands by the State; and, unless otherwise provided by law, prosecute cases involving violations of state laws and cases involving agreements, uniform laws, or other matters which are enforceable in the courts of the State. The attorney general shall be charged with such other duties and have such authority as heretofore provided by common law or statute.  Section 26-7, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
 
I regret that we are unable to help you.
 
Kevin K. Takata
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
333 Queen Street, Suite 200
Honolulu, Hawaii  96813
(808)586-1075
 
 
 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, they are basically telling us:

1.  The legislature makes the laws after the AG offers an opinion on the constitutionality and ability to withstand legal scrutiny.

2.  If we break that law, the AG and prosecutor will prefer charges based upon laws they helped write and/or reviewed.

3.  In order to know how to interpret the laws before or after we break them, we have to hire a professional lawyer -- a lawyer who was never included in the AG's review -- and they have to try to figure out what's legal and what can land us in jail.

4.  Whether we obtain outside legal counsel or not, there is no guarantee a lawyer or "layman" could properly interpret the law based on hypotheticals.  It takes a court to rule on cases which creates the body of knowledge on how the law is being applied.

So, we are paying tax money to the AG to help the legislature pass laws (rules) that we are all responsible for following, but can't get a correct interpretation from the AG's office because they apparently are representing the state's interests, not the interests of the people who pay them.

An analogy would be:  Let's play a game.  I'll make up the rules and give you a list.  The only way you'll know if you understood what I wrote is after you receive a penalty or have a point subtracted as punishment.  Only by making your own fouls, or learning from the fouls of other teams before you, can you figure out a strategy that avoids breaking the rules.  Finally, you write me a check for making up the rules you all have to play by!

Do I have that right?

Just as I suspected, the attorney general would just pass the buck. Have one of his hunch man do his dirty work.

Mr. Schick,
 
I am in receipt of your email dated July 3, 2016, inquiring about SB 2954 which has recently been signed by Governor Ige.  Unfortunately, the Attorney General cannot provide legal advice to private citizens.  As provided by statute:
 
The department shall administer and render state legal services, including furnishing of written legal opinions to the governor, legislature, and such state departments and officers as the governor may direct; represent the State in all civil actions in which the State is a party; approve as to legality and form all documents relating to the acquisition of any land or interest in lands by the State; and, unless otherwise provided by law, prosecute cases involving violations of state laws and cases involving agreements, uniform laws, or other matters which are enforceable in the courts of the State. The attorney general shall be charged with such other duties and have such authority as heretofore provided by common law or statute.  Section 26-7, Hawaii Revised Statutes.
 
I regret that we are unable to help you.
 
Kevin K. Takata
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
333 Queen Street, Suite 200
Honolulu, Hawaii  96813
(808)586-1075
 
 
 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, they are basically telling us:

1.  The legislature makes the laws after the AG offers an opinion on the constitutionality and ability to withstand legal scrutiny.

2.  If we break that law, the AG and prosecutor will prefer charges based upon laws they helped write and/or reviewed.

3.  In order to know how to interpret the laws before or after we break them, we have to hire a professional lawyer -- a lawyer who was never included in the AG's review -- and they have to try to figure out what's legal and what can land us in jail.

4.  Whether we obtain outside legal counsel or not, there is no guarantee a lawyer or "layman" could properly interpret the law based on hypotheticals.  It takes a court to rule on cases which creates the body of knowledge on how the law is being applied.

So, we are paying tax money to the AG to help the legislature pass laws (rules) that we are all responsible for following, but can't get a correct interpretation from the AG's office because they apparently are representing the state's interests, not the interests of the people who pay them.

An analogy would be:  Let's play a game.  I'll make up the rules and give you a list.  The only way you'll know if you understood what I wrote is after you receive a penalty or have a point subtracted as punishment.  Only by making your own fouls, or learning from the fouls of other teams before you, can you figure out a strategy that avoids breaking the rules.  Finally, you write me a check for making up the rules you all have to play by!

Do I have that right?

I wonder if Hawaii news now would investigate this, and why that a taxpayer funded legal office will not give legal advice, to the tax payer, on the intent of a law?

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but we will not, under any circumstance, give you the information needed to not be ignorant......

  Just follow the law, it's really easy to do guys. 

Odd. I guess there services vary with the times. I asked them a question in the 90s and they replied pretty quick.

Was a legal opinion provided to the legislature or governor on this bill?
If so, is it subject to the sunshine law and a matter of public record?
If not, why not? As numerous testimonies advised the legislature and governor that this bill was in violation of federal law.
A formal opinion should have been provided to somebody.

We don't need legal advice.
We just need to know the advice you gave the legislature and/or the governor.

Just spit-ballin'

I wonder if Hawaii news now would investigate this, and why that a taxpayer funded legal office will not give legal advice, to the tax payer, on the intent of a law?

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but we will not, under any circumstance, give you the information needed to not be ignorant......

One of the defenses to a crime is believing that you were acting legally based on the advice of an appropriate official. Not guaranteeing you will get off but at least if we did seek advice and the advice ended up being wrong we do have some grounds for defense.

One of the defenses to a crime is believing that you were acting legally based on the advice of an appropriate official. Not guaranteeing you will get off but at least if we did seek advice and the advice ended up being wrong we do have some grounds for defense.

No one is "seeking advice," only an interpretation of the statute from the same agency which (1) reviewed the bill before it was law, (2) must file charges when someone has broken that law, and (3) prosecute anyone in the state who breaks that law.

Interpretations are explanations, not legal advice.   I guess you missed that day in your "legal studies."   

No one is "seeking advice," only an interpretation of the statute from the same agency which (1) reviewed the bill before it was law, (2) must file charges when someone has broken that law, and (3) prosecute anyone in the state who breaks that law.

Interpretations are explanations, not legal advice.   I guess you missed that day in your "legal studies."   

 
Semantics. Advice, in the context of my post, is a legal interpretation.

Are you incapable of having a mature conversation? Couldn't you have replied without snide comment?

Semantics. Advice, in the context of my post, is a legal interpretation.

Are you incapable of having a mature conversation? Couldn't you have replied without snide comment?

WRONG!  "Context" has zero to do with it.

You really took "legal studies" classes?  Really???  You might want to get a refund, or maybe audit the class to pick up what you might have missed the first time you slept through class!

This is not a matter of "semantics."  That would imply the meanings are the same but the words are different.

Legal ADVICE is providing analysis and guidance based on a specific case.  Legal INFORMATION or Interpretation is a GENERAL reading of the law not related to a specific instance.

As a general matter, only a lawyer may give actual legal advice, whereas any non-lawyer may recite legal information. Furthermore, it is generally illegal for a non-lawyer or unlicensed attorney to offer legal advice or otherwise represent someone other than himself or herself in a court of law.

Unlike legal information, legal advice refers to the written or oral counsel about a legal matter that would affect the rights and responsibilities of the person receiving the advice. In addition, actual legal advice requires careful analysis of the law as it applies to a person's specific situation - as opposed to speculation based on generic facts.

http://hirealawyer.findlaw.com/do-you-need-a-lawyer/what-is-legal-advice.html



If you don't like snarkiness or snide comments, then quit posting false and incorrect comments!  If you spent one fraction of the time you spend writing comments simply making sure your information is accurate, coincides with other sources, and is written plainly and literately, you'd be much further ahead than you are now.

I find it fascinating the amount of time you spend defending your mistakes and bad information when you could have saved time verifying it beforehand.   

Just follow the law, it's really easy to do guys. 

Spoken like a true blue SUBJECT. LOL...... A citizen is NOT a subject. Js

Spoken like a true blue SUBJECT. LOL...... A citizen is NOT a subject. Js

Unless the citizen is the subject of an investigation ...   

 

WRONG!  "Context" has zero to do with it.

You really took "legal studies" classes?  Really???  You might want to get a refund, or maybe audit the class to pick up what you might have missed the first time you slept through class!

This is not a matter of "semantics."  That would imply the meanings are the same but the words are different.

Legal ADVICE is providing analysis and guidance based on a specific case.  Legal INFORMATION or Interpretation is a GENERAL reading of the law not related to a specific instance.

http://hirealawyer.findlaw.com/do-you-need-a-lawyer/what-is-legal-advice.html



If you don't like snarkiness or snide comments, then quit posting false and incorrect comments!  If you spent one fraction of the time you spend writing comments simply making sure your information is accurate, coincides with other sources, and is written plainly and literately, you'd be much further ahead than you are now.

I find it fascinating the amount of time you spend defending your mistakes and bad information when you could have saved time verifying it beforehand.   

You don't care about mistakes, you just smell blood in the water. If you only cared about mistakes then you would politely show me where and how I was wrong but that's not what you did is it?

If you ask a cop if an action is illegal and the cop says no then he advised to on the law, hence advice. In this example the cop is not advising you on a specific case, but on the law itself. Yes this is also referred to as interpreting but in the end it is still advice, hence you at nitpicking semantics.

If a cop tells you speeding is against the law, the cop is advising you of the law. Calling it interpretation is fine but it is still advice.

You don't care about mistakes, you just smell blood in the water. If you only cared about mistakes then you would politely show me where and how I was wrong but that's not what you did is it?

If you ask a cop if an action is illegal and the cop says no then he advised to on the law, hence advice. In this example the cop is not advising you on a specific case, but on the law itself. Yes this is also referred to as interpreting but in the end it is still advice, hence you at nitpicking semantics.

If a cop tells you speeding is against the law, the cop is advising you of the law. Calling it interpretation is fine but it is still advice.

LOL!  Once again, hijacking the thread to defend your own bad information!  Read the definitions.  Even your response is wrong! 

"Is speeding illegal?"  "Yes, it is."   <== general information.

"I was going over the speed limit on the way to the hospital ER. My friend was bleeding profusely.  Is that considered mitigating circumstances?" <== calls for a conclusion given a specific situation, i.e. ADVICE

 

LOL!  Once again, hijacking the thread to defend your own bad information!  Read the definitions.  Even your response is wrong! 

"Is speeding illegal?"  "Yes, it is."   <== general information.

"I was going over the speed limit on the way to the hospital ER. My friend was bleeding profusely.  Is that considered mitigating circumstances?" <== calls for a conclusion given a specific situation, i.e. ADVICE

 

And your pattern repeats. You derail the thread and then blame it on me. Let me guess, next you are going to complain that I responded after you used the back to topic emoticon? You don't care about staying on topic because if you did you wouldn't have bothered to go down this path in the first place.  You only use that emoticon for your flame war purposes. I reply to you because I refuse to be bullied by you and your insults you try to seal in with an emoticon.

Saying that speeding is illegal is advising someone of the law no matter how you want to twist it. My statement remains accurate, you have proven nothing by playing with semantics.

And your pattern repeats. You derail the thread and then blame it on me. Let me guess, next you are going to complain that I responded after you used the back to topic emoticon? You don't care about staying on topic because if you did you wouldn't have bothered to go down this path in the first place.  You only use that emoticon for your flame war purposes. I reply to you because I refuse to be bullied by you.

Saying that speeding is illegal is advising someone of the law no matter how you want to twist it. My statement remains accurate, you have proven nothing by playing with semantics.

I'm not "twisting" the meaning.  You are, Mr. "I took legal classes".  They should have taught you the law is very specific in the language and vocabulary used.  It has a common meaning among the lawyers and judges, so they are not spending all day in case after case defining the difference between "advice" and "interpretation"! 

Post sources that agree with your definition and differentiations for "legal advice".  Otherwise, you're just arguing so you can keep the thread off topic.

If my pattern repeats, it's because you can't hold a discussion up on your own.  Learn to have an intelligent discussion using real facts and experience, then maybe the pattern will be broken!

 

I'm not "twisting" the meaning.  You are, Mr. "I took legal classes".  They should have taught you the law is very specific in the language and vocabulary used.  It has a common meaning among the lawyers and judges, so they are not spending all day in case after case defining the difference between "advice" and "interpretation"! 

Post sources that agree with your definition and differentiations for "legal advice".  Otherwise, you're just arguing so you can keep the thread off topic.

If my pattern repeats, it's because you can't hold a discussion up on your own.  Learn to have an intelligent discussion using real facts and experience, then maybe the pattern will be broken!

 

You are using one definition of the word advice while I am using a different definition of the word. You however are claiming yours is the only accurate one which is simply not true. I didn't think it would come to this but we can start with the dictionary since you need to define fairly basic English words.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advice?s=t
1.an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.:
I shall act on your advice.
2. a communication, especially from a distance, containing information:
3. an official notification, especially one pertaining to a business agreement:

Obviously, given the context of my post, I was not using definition #1 but definition #2. Communicating information. You wanted to say interpret and I was cordial and agreed that interpret could also be an applicable word. Unfortunately you could not return the gesture and had to pretend your definition was the only in existence.

I even researched multiple law dictionaries for you and amazingly they didn't have definitions for the word "advice"
http://www.legal-dictionary.org/ld.asp?q=advice
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=advice&type=1

So if it wasn't obvious to you in the beginning what I was getting at in my statement then it sure as heck is now. My original point remains valid even if you want to nitpick the terms I used so I see no point in continuing down this path

You are using one definition of the word advice while I am using a different definition of the word. You however are claiming yours is the only accurate one which is simply not true. I didn't think it would come to this but we can start with the dictionary since you need to define fairly basic English words.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advice?s=t
1.an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.:
I shall act on your advice.
2. a communication, especially from a distance, containing information:
3. an official notification, especially one pertaining to a business agreement:

Obviously, given the context of my post, I was not using definition #1 but definition #2. Communicating information. You wanted to say interpret and I was cordial and agreed that interpret could also be an applicable word. Unfortunately you could not return the gesture and had to pretend your definition was the only in existence.

I even researched multiple law dictionaries for you and amazingly they didn't have definitions for the word "advice"
http://www.legal-dictionary.org/ld.asp?q=advice
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=advice&type=1

So if it wasn't obvious to you in the beginning what I was getting at in my statement then it sure as heck is now. My original point remains valid even if you want to nitpick the terms I used.

Legal Advice is from an attorney and specific to a client's case.

Legal information/interpretation/definition is general and doesn't require legal analysis.

Why is that so difficult?

I truly wish you spent as much effort BEING right as you spend TRYING TO PROVE you are right!

Using the wrong word with an alternate meaning does not make it correct.  It makes you uninformed.

One of the defenses to a crime is believing that you were acting legally based on the advice of an appropriate official. Not guaranteeing you will get off but at least if we did seek advice and the advice ended up being wrong we do have some grounds for defense.

This is the context of what you are now arguing to defend.  You said "advice" from someone can be used as a defense.  According to you, you are now claiming "advice" simply means "communication" and "information".

Let's assume your alternate definition of "advice" is correct, that advice is NOT considered more than "it's against the law to speed".  How can that be used as a defense?  That's basic information on the law that is available to you without consulting a lawyer.  If a Cop, who is not a lawyer, gives general information on the law, you can't use that as a defense.  The Cop might be mistaken, might have phrased it incorrectly, or maybe he made stuff up rather than be thought ignorant of the law he's enforcing.  He's also allowed to lie in the course of an investigation. 

With all that on the Cop's side regarding accountability, how do you get from there to "if we did seek advice and the advice ended up being wrong we do have some grounds for defense"?