I had written the Department of the Attorney General and the Governor in early September simply asking for them to tell my how much taxpayer money was being expended for the state to hire the outside counsel to further litigate Young v Hawaii. Seemed to me like this should be readily available for the public to see, but apparently not... it seems to be some kind of secret.

They COULD have just sent me something like this (numbers made up out of thin air... hope it's nowhere near that much, but who knows? That's why I asked.):

Petition for en banc hearing: $100,000
Litigate en banc hearing: $300,000
Litigate possible SCOTUS hearing: $1,000,000

But no. Nothing. i finally got a statement back from the Governor saying the request to him had been referred to the AG, who already had my identical email.

Senator Gabbard was unwilling to ask for the information, and he consulted with the NRA (Dan Reid) who came up with the very helpful (gee, thanks) idea that I should file a UIPA request. Gabbard or the NRA would have had a much more likely chance of getting the info if they had just asked for it, or if unresponsive if they had filed the UIPA request. But no, they wanted me to do it!

So I filed one on September 24. The agency (AG) contacted has 10 business days to respond. I just got my response today, October 8, the tenth or 11th business day.

Here is my request:

All records, information, documents, etc. in any format, paper, electronic, audio, video, transcriptions,
notes, email, etc. of any and all information or communications regarding the hiring and costs involved in
hiring, retaining the services of, or contracting with any outside counsel or attorneys or firms for pursuing
the Young v Hawaii litigation. This would include any and all documents, etc. within the Department of the
Attorney General, and between the Department of the Attorney General and any other department or
individual within or outside of the government of the state of Hawaii and/or any divisions of any county
government or any individuals therein, in particular with any staff members of, or in general, the County
of Hawaii Office of the Corporation Counsel. Any and all documents and information in any format that
make any mention of allocating or paying funds in any amount to any firm or individuals or other
government agencies associated with the hiring or contracting with any outside individuals or firms related
to the Young v Hawaii litigation. Provide copies of the actual contract(s) or any other documents with
Hogan Lovells US LLP and/or individuals Neal K. Katyal, Colleen E Roh Sinzdak, Mitchell P. Reich, et al.

Here is what I got back today:

X Request requires extensive agency efforts to search, review, or segregate the records, or otherwise
prepare the records for inspection or copying.
X Agency requires additional time to respond to the request in order to avoid an unreasonable interference
with its other statutory duties and functions.

I'll update this thread if I ever get any real information back from them.

Thanks for pushing the issue. It SHOULD outrage every taxpayer to have to pay somebody to take away something that belongs to us in the first place.

It's like giving money to crack heads to steal and vandalize public property.

Petition for en banc hearing: $100,000
Litigate en banc hearing: $300,000
Litigate possible SCOTUS hearing: $1,000,000

State will also have to reimburse the Young attorneys if they lose.  About another million.

Then beck takes us all to dinner.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

State will also have to reimburse the Young attorneys if they lose.  About another million.

I also wrote the county council members after the meeting where I testified and they approved the state agreement to take over for the county lawyers and asked them if the agreement covered the costs that could be levied against the county mayor and police chief since they are subjects of the lawsuit, and the agreement didn't seem to mention that at all. Only one council member wrote back and she seemed confused about the issue but was assured by the Corporation Counsel Office that the county was off the hook for any and all costs.Since those lawyers argued they were too incompetent to file a petition for en banc, I hope their answer here was also a reflection of their incompetence. I sure hope we get to find out and that the county ends up on the short end of a very big stick. At least that portion of my taxes would be going to a good cause... reimbursing Mr. Young and his attorneys... hopefully to fight another case on another day furthering our rights.

Thanks for pushing the issue. It SHOULD outrage every taxpayer to have to pay somebody to take away something that belongs to us in the first place.

It's like giving money to crack heads to steal and vandalize public property.

That's about par for the course for out "public servants" here in Hawaii. Unfortunately.

Then beck takes us all to dinner.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

If I get half that I'll take you guys to top of ala manona hotel for steaks.

If I get half that I'll take you guys to top of ala manona hotel for steaks.

Or the all you can eat special at Uncle Bo's

Or the all you can eat special at Uncle Bo's

Ill try the special next time.  That prime rib and cheese meal hurt my stomach when we went there.

Ill try the special next time.  That prime rib and cheese meal hurt my stomach when we went there.

Get the Pan Roast.  It's based off Oyster Bar in Vegas at Palace Station.  The hotel where OJ got arrested at.  There's 2 location and the hotel OJ got arrested at is the better of the 2.  Just tell the uber or cab driver that and they'll know where to take you.

Thanks for the effort PunaP and for keeping us in the loop. 

Then beck takes us all to dinner.

If I get half that I'll take you guys to top of ala manona hotel for steaks.

No way. If Wolfwood aka Mr. Beck runs the table, we're all taking him to dinner. He will have earned every dime. 
(Or at least inviting him to a GTG)

Just received a further response to my request for information about when I might expect an actual factual response to my request.

They sent me the charges for them to do the work and provide me with email copies:

$930.00 (billing for 63 hours of work to tell my how they decided on hiring who they did, and how much they have allocated.)

Surely they jest. So much for "transparency" and "open" government by our "public servants".

P.S. I don't have that kind of extra money laying around to give to the Igeocracy.

Just received a further response to my request for information about when I might expect an actual factual response to my request.

They sent me the charges for them to do the work and provide me with email copies:

$930.00 (billing for 63 hours of work to tell my how they decided on hiring who they did, and how much they have allocated.)

Surely they jest. So much for "transparency" and "open" government by our "public servants".

P.S. I don't have that kind of extra money laying around to give to the Igeocracy.

What no one is telling the public is that "transparency" comes with a price.  Not sure I know anyone who is not filing a lawsuit, is willing to spend that much.

Maybe reach out to the news to let them know how our states transparency is?  And if we're lucky, they will look into the matter.  But we all know who controls the media.

They can charge for information requests? 

I've spent a bunch of hours for FOIA requests, but never was asked to provide hours expended.  The only time I was asked about hours expended was for gathering documents and preparation and participation as part of a deposition, but that was for a lawsuit between to private companies.  I guess UIPA is different.  It was my understanding that it was the government's responsibility to respond to FOIA requests as part of course of normal business. 

Smells like one of those things where someone gives a BS answer, hoping the request dies and the requester doesn't push.  If that's the case, I hope it blows up in their face.  We've had some folks try similar with FOIA and it didn't end well.  Even reviews for sensitive information gets scrutinized pretty closely. 

$930 for 63 hours is less than the feds charge per hour (minimum is $21 per hour of work up to $76 an hour) for FOIA requests

They can charge for information requests? 

I've spent a bunch of hours for FOIA requests, but never was asked to provide hours expended.  The only time I was asked about hours expended was for gathering documents and preparation and participation as part of a deposition, but that was for a lawsuit between to private companies.  I guess UIPA is different.  It was my understanding that it was the government's responsibility to respond to FOIA requests as part of course of normal business. 

Smells like one of those things where someone gives a BS answer, hoping the request dies and the requester doesn't push.  If that's the case, I hope it blows up in their face.  We've had some folks try similar with FOIA and it didn't end well.  Even reviews for sensitive information gets scrutinized pretty closely.

They granted me the $30 waiver, but not the $60 waiver. I claimed, without providing detail, that I had the ability to "widely disseminate information from the government record to the public at large", which would have meant that they would have provided the information at no cost, however, they rejected my claim. I have connections with several media outlets including a nationally-syndicated radio program in over 200 markets, all of whom have allowed me a forum in the past to provide information I've acquired fromt the state of Hawii re particular policies and practices.

I've contacted a number of journalists and media outlets, several rights organizations, and senator Gabbard, who I had originally asked to pursue this once I got the original runaround, but he and NRA suggested I file my own UIPA request. We'll where it goes now.

The BIG question is, why won't they just tell the public, at the very least, how much taxpayer money they are spending for this? That seems like that'd be a basic part of a publicly available budget, but what do I know? Why would they want to keep that hidden? I can see why they'd want the rest of the communications about their reasoning (or lack thereof) re the whole process of deciding whether to, and then who to, hire for the job, which they themselves would have to have determined that they were too incompetent to do. "Hey, we've only got 600 people on staff here... we need some help!" Yeah, right.

Ahh.  One difference I see is that the last few FIOA requests that I worked on were submitted via a US Senator.  Maybe requests from peasants (I'm kidding, well, mostly) are treated differently.

We had one FOIA request from the Government of Japan on behalf of some environmental activism group.  Totally a fishing expedition.  So maybe you need someone with more influence to submit the request.   

Anyways, good luck.  And yes, the public should have the right to see how public funds are being spent. 

Ahh.  One difference I see is that the last few FIOA requests that I worked on were submitted via a US Senator.  Maybe requests from peasants (I'm kidding, well, mostly) are treated differently.

We had one FOIA request from the Government of Japan on behalf of some environmental activism group.  Totally a fishing expedition.  So maybe you need someone with more influence to submit the request.   

Anyways, good luck.  And yes, the public should have the right to see how public funds are being spent.

That's why I originally asked senator Gabbard to ask the AG for the same information when I first got the runaround. Lawmakers apparently have some "pull" or "privilege" by which they may be granted access to information that a mere subject, er, citizen, is not allowed to see. However, senator Gabbard did not want to do that. He still doesn't want to do that. He just wrote me back suggestimg I "narrow the focus" of my request in order to limit the fees associate with a much larger number of documents. At present I'm inclined to further pursue the attempt to get the fees waived as part of a legitimate effort to "widely disseminate information from the government record to the public at large".

In the meantime, I'd suggest, and hope, that at least one other individual in the whole damn state will file a UIPA request asking only for the amount of funds allocated to outside law firm(s) presently, and potentially in the future should the litigation proceed to various further stages. One basic question: how much are the taxpayers' on the hook for outside lawyers to litigate Young v Hawaii?

That's why I originally asked senator Gabbard to ask the AG for the same information when I first got the runaround. Lawmakers apparently have some "pull" or "privilege" by which they may be granted access to information that a mere subject, er, citizen, is not allowed to see. However, senator Gabbard did not want to do that. He still doesn't want to do that. He just wrote me back suggestimg I "narrow the focus" of my request in order to limit the fees associate with a much larger number of documents. At present I'm inclined to further pursue the attempt to get the fees waived as part of a legitimate effort to "widely disseminate information from the government record to the public at large".

In the meantime, I'd suggest, and hope, that at least one other individual in the whole damn state will file a UIPA request asking only for the amount of funds allocated to outside law firm(s) presently, and potentially in the future should the litigation proceed to various further stages. One basic question: how much are the taxpayers' on the hook for outside lawyers to litigate Young v Hawaii?

Send me the UIPA request you sent (originally) . Hawaii Firearms Coalition might be able to help, So far we have got answers to every request i have made. The only charges i got was $92.50 and that was because we requested 1800 pages.

Just received a further response to my request for information about when I might expect an actual factual response to my request.

They sent me the charges for them to do the work and provide me with email copies:

$930.00 (billing for 63 hours of work to tell my how they decided on hiring who they did, and how much they have allocated.)

Surely they jest. So much for "transparency" and "open" government by our "public servants".

P.S. I don't have that kind of extra money laying around to give to the Igeocracy.

Did they give you a breakdown of the fees ? Ask them how they were calculated and by whom. Ask them how they intent to keep record of the actual hours used.

“Allowable fees.” An agency may charge fees as follows:
 (1) Fees for search, review, and segregation of
 the record(s), with the fi rst $30 of the total waived, calculated as follows:
 (a) For search: $2.50 per 15 minutes  or fraction thereof; and
 (b) For review/segregation: $5 per 15 minutes or fraction thereof.
 (2) Any other lawful fees

That's why I originally asked senator Gabbard to ask the AG for the same information when I first got the runaround. Lawmakers apparently have some "pull" or "privilege" by which they may be granted access to information that a mere subject, er, citizen, is not allowed to see. However, senator Gabbard did not want to do that. He still doesn't want to do that. He just wrote me back suggestimg I "narrow the focus" of my request in order to limit the fees associate with a much larger number of documents. At present I'm inclined to further pursue the attempt to get the fees waived as part of a legitimate effort to "widely disseminate information from the government record to the public at large".

In the meantime, I'd suggest, and hope, that at least one other individual in the whole damn state will file a UIPA request asking only for the amount of funds allocated to outside law firm(s) presently, and potentially in the future should the litigation proceed to various further stages. One basic question: how much are the taxpayers' on the hook for outside lawyers to litigate Young v Hawaii?

Ahh.  Gotcha.  In the one case where I had to response to multiple FIOA requests, respond to lawsuit, and eventually a subpoena, the person pressing the issue was a buddy of a US Senator.  The thing is, in their initial protest, they essentially proved the Government's case when it came time for protesting why they had a conflict of interest.  Come to find out, the company was way underwater and was their last ditch effort to lash out and try to get some money, from anyone.  The Senator just attached the letters written to him by his buddy with a request for us to "respond".