Opposition Brief — Spirit of Aloha Temple, a Hawaii Nonprofit Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Maui County, Hawaii, et al.
Supreme Court briefOct 14, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 24-1327
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
COUNTY OF MAUI,
Respondent.
————
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
————
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
————
VICTORIA J. TAKAYESU
Counsel of Record
BRIAN A. BILBERRY
Deputy Corporation Counsel
DEPARTMENT OF THE
CORPORATION COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MAUI
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793
(808) 270-7741
victoria.takayesuhamilton@co.maui.hi.us
brian.bilberry@co.maui.hi.us
Counsel for Respondent
October 14, 2025
WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
COUNTERSTATEMENT TO
QUESTION PRESENTED
Petitioners urge review of a decision of the circuit
court which Petitioners allege “conflicts” with a legal
standard applied by other circuits and this Court.
Petitioners narrowly assert the question is over
whether a religious organization making a “substantial
burden” claim pursuant to the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act [42 U.S.C. § 2000cc,
et. seq.] must prove the unavailability of other land for
its religious use and/or must prove a municipality’s
reasons for denying a land use permit are arbitrary.
Rather, Petitioners argue, a court considering the
imposition of a substantial burden on religious practice
should apply a “totality of the circumstances” test in
determining whether a substantial burden has been
imposed. This case does not present the issue(s) raised
by Petitioners for reasons not the least of which is that
the circuit court below expressly applied the “totality of
the circumstances” test Petitioners advocate.
Moreover, under the legal standard as correctly
stated by the circuit court, the determination of a
substantial burden is whether Maui County’s actions
were oppressive on religious exercise, and not whether
Petitioners can prove a burden that cannot be
mitigated, or whether Petitioners can prove denial of
their special permit was arbitrary.
The circuit court correctly concluded under the correct
legal standard that the totality of the circumstances in
this case did not demonstrate Maui County’s actions
were oppressive on Petitioners’ exercise of their faith,
or “imposed a significantly great restriction or onus
upon such exercise.”
(i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COUNTERSTATEMENT TO QUESTION
PRESENTED ...................................................
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................
iv
INTRODUCTION ................................................
1
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE..........
1
I. Factual Background .................................
1
II. Legal Background .....................................
10
III. Proceedings Below ....................................
17
REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ....
20
I. The Ninth Circuit Court expressly considered the “totality of the circumstances”
in ruling against the substantial burden
claim as is consistent with interjurisdictional decisional law .................................
20
II. Petitioners’ argument invites this Court
to ignore the totality of the circumstances
they incorrectly assert the Ninth Circuit
Court failed to consider ............................
23
CONCLUSION ....................................................
24
APPENDIX
(iii)
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
Andon, LLC v. City or Newport News,
813 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2016) ..................... 16, 17
Applera Corp.-Applied Biosystems Group
v. Illumina, Inc.,
No. C 07-02845 WHA, 2009 WL 8755606
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009), aff’d, 375
Fed.Appx. 12 (Fed. Cir. 2010)...................
15
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014) ..
11
Christian Gospel Church, Inc. v. City and
County of San Francisco,
896 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................
13
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v.
City of Chicago,
342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003) .....................
13
Episcopal Student Found. v.
City of Ann Arbor,
341 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Mich. 2004) ....
14
Erickson v. Pierce Cty.,
960 F.2d 801 (9th Cir.1992) ......................
15
Founding Church of Scientology of
Washington, D. C. v. United States,
409 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1969) .................
11
Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v.
County of Sutter,
456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................
13
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist.,
445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006), reh’g en
banc denied, 455 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.
2006) ..........................................................
14
Livingston Christian Schools,
858 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 2017) .....................
16
Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery
Protective Ass’n,
485 U.S. 439 (1988) ...................................
14
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside,
366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004) .................
14
New Harvest Christian Fellowship v.
City of Salinas,
29 F.4th 596 (9th Cir. 2022) ................... 5, 6, 21
San Jose Christian Coll. v.
City of Morgan Hill,
360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................
21
Sananikone v. United States,
623 Fed.Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........
15
Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398 (1963) ...................................
14
Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui,
49 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022) ............ 1-3, 18, 19
Spirit of Aloha Templ v. County of Maui,
384 F.Supp.3d 1231 (Dist. Haw. 2019) ....
18
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Spirit of Aloha Temple v. Cnty. of Maui,
No. CV 14-00535 SOM/RLP, 2023 WL
5178248 (D. Haw. Aug. 11, 2023),
reconsideration denied, No. CV 14-00535
SOM/RLP, 2023 WL 5754107 (D. Haw.
Sept. 6, 2023), and rev’d in part, 132
F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2025), and aff’d
in part, appeal dismissed in part,
No. 23-3453, 2025 WL 943143
(9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) ............... 4, 6, 11, 20-22
Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind.
Employment Sec. Div.,
450 U.S. 707 (1981) ...................................
14
Westchester Day School v.
Village of Mamaroneck,
504 F.3d 338 (2nd Cir. 2007) ....................
16
CONSTITUTION
U.S. Const. amend. I .................................... 14, 18
STATUTES
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) ....................................
15
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b) ....................................
15
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1) ...............................
17
RULES
H.A.R. § 15-15-95(c)......................................
19
H.A.R. § 15-15-95(c)(2) .................................
18
H.A.R. § 15-15-95(c)(3) .................................
18
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
146 Cong. Rec. S7774-01 (2001) ................... 13, 15
Spirit of Aloha Temple, website, spiritof
aloha.org (last visited Oct. 9, 2025)..........
7, 9
INTRODUCTION
Over the nearly eleven-years of litigation this case
as traversed, and what the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
labels a “tortuous path,” the evidence and “totality of
the circumstances” adduced at two separate jury trials
and two circuit court appeals demonstrated that
Petitioners Fred Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temple
sought religious protection for what very clearly was a
commercial and profit seeking enterprise.
This matter should have culminated with the circuit
court’s most recent and sound determination that the
County of Maui’s (“Maui County”) denial of Petitioners’
special permit to continue this commercial activity in
state and county conservation and agricultural land,
even if considered “church” activity, was not “oppressive”
or imposing “a significantly great restriction or onus”
on Petitioners’ religious exercise.”
The circuit court expressly considered the “totality
of the circumstances” in coming to this conclusion.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. Factual Background
On the record of the first of two separate jury
trials on two different sets of claims, it was established
that in 1994 Petitioner Fredrick Honig bought land
in Haiku, Maui zoned for coastal conservation and
agricultural use (the “property”). Honig knew the land
was subject to environmental protections and reserved
for agricultural use. Spirit of Aloha Temple, et al. v.
County of Maui, 49 F.4th 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 2022).
Honig immediately began developing the land without
seeking any permits – clearing, grading, and cutting
the contours of the protected coast, cutting in roads,
and altering a natural watercourse. Id. Honig built
2
illegal structures on the land and installed illegal
cesspools near drinking water wells. Id. Honig failed
to obtain monitoring and preservation plans required
by law for several known Hawaiian archeological sites
on the land, including an agricultural terrace, burial
crypt, and irrigation ditch. Id.
Honig then through a non-profit entity used the
property as a venue to conduct commercial weddings,
vacation rentals, retreats, and special events, all without required permits. Id. Well Being International,
Inc., the non-profit entity through which the business
was run, eventually registered three trade names;
“Maui Gay Weddings,” “A Marriage Made in Heaven,”
and “Maui Wedding Planners.” App. 68a, 91a, 94a, 97a,
100a. The property was marketed and advertised for
weddings, wedding planning services, and as a
wedding venue in the Yellow Pages and on the internet
through at least two of the trade names. App. 74a.1
Honig’s services included helicopter transportation and
landings on conservation land for his wedding clients
and other guests. App. 78a, 79a, 118a, 143a, 144a.
Approximately 550 tourist destination weddings
were conducted on the property by late 2015. Spirit of
Aloha Temple, 49 F.4th at 1184. The couples who were
1
The property was advertised on the internet “dream vacation[s],”
“personalized retreats,” vacation rental accommodations, and
weddings services to include oceanfront “Honeymoon cottages.”
App. 68a, 83a-87a, 106a-107a. At least one internet advertisement
noted vacation accommodations were available at “Daily &
Weekly Rates[.]” Id. The property was also advertised as “an
ocean front waterfall pavilion for weddings, engagements or vow
renewal,” offering “wedding planners and event consultants[,]”
“beautiful ocean front cottages[,]” and “six vacation rentals[.]” Id.
Hospitality services offered included on-site massage, yoga and
mediation sessions, and private or group surf lessons were offered
as well. Id.
3
married on the property during this period arrived
from 46 out of the 50 United States and 7 different
countries. App. 103a. All of these business and
commercial activities were conducted on the property
without any required permits. Spirit of Aloha Temple,
49 F.4th at 1148. Later, during an original permitting
application hearing on March 23, 2010, HONIG admitted
to the Maui Planning Commission (“Commission”) as the
approving agency for his permit application, as follows:
MR. HONIG: Yeah, that -- we lost $20,000.
I have -- I am not -- I have a C.P.A. doing our
bookkeeping. Everything is kept in there. I
have not -- you know, we spent thousands of
dollars on advertising trying because our
business was going down. And we’re not able
to advertise in the papers because of you
people. Like otherwise, we could put in the
paper let’s have an event here, something like
that, but we have not.
So, we spent all of this money on advertising and running a business. And I’m not the
greatest businessman. It is not my forte. I’m
a monk. App. 80a.
One of Maui County’s Planning Commissioners at
this same hearing reported seeing an internet ad
marketing $9,900 wedding packages on the property.
App. 81a.
Honig was repeatedly put on notice that these
activities required appropriate permits but continued
to violate land use regulations. Spirit of Aloha Temple,
49 F.4th at 1184.
In 2007 Honing formed Spirit of Aloha Temple, a
new non-profit entity to take over the business, and
called it a “church.” Spirit of Aloha Temple entered a
lease for the property with Honig. App. 145a, 171a. Honig
4
and Spirit of Aloha Temple then applied for a special
permit for a “church, church[-]operated bed and
breakfast establishment, weddings, special events, day
seminars, and helicopter landing pad.” Spirit of Aloha
Temple, 132 F.4th at 1148. The County of Maui Planning
Commission denied that special permit, noting several
buildings without proper permits; general problems
with the helicopter pad; and potential adverse impacts
to surrounding properties from loud music, helicopter
noise, and increased traffic. Id.
In 2012 Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temple filed a
second application seeking to hold “weekly church
service,” “sacred programs, educational, inspirational,
or spiritual including Hawaiian cultural events, and
spiritual commitment ceremonies such as weddings,”
with limitations on the number of attendees. Id.
The County of Maui Planning Commission denied
the second application.
In its decision affirming the second jury verdict
adverse to Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temple, the
circuit court reviewed the “totality of the circumstances,” as follows:
When the Commission denied Plaintiffs’
second special-use-permit application, it
noted that the proposed uses would increase
traffic and burden public agencies. The
Commission also noted safety concerns for
drivers and pedestrians on Haumana Road.
Haumana Road is a narrow road, between
eleven and eighteen feet wide at different parts.
In contrast, the average rural or agricultural
road is about twenty-two feet wide. Haumana
Road contains no streetlights, no sidewalks,
no shoulder, and no lane markings. And in
5
certain places, two cars cannot pass each
other unless one pulls off the road.
The Commission found compelling the
testimony of several nearby property owners
on Haumana Road, who expressed concerns
about pedestrian safety. Residents testified
that children regularly walk home from
school on the road and that the road has
several blind turns, which pose a safety issue.
Other residents noted concerns about flooding
on the road during storms that made the road
difficult to pass, although Plaintiffs challenge
the severity and frequency of such flooding.
Given the conditions of Haumana Road, the
County’s concerns about traffic and road
safety are well supported in the record and
are not arbitrary. New Harvest, 29 F.4th at
602. Moreover, the County’s reasons for denying
the permit have been consistent, and the
County has not exhibited “conflicting rationalizations for repeated denials.” Id. at 603.
It is also undisputed that Plaintiffs were not
“precluded from using other sites in the
[County].” Id. Plaintiffs did not attempt to
relocate, nor is there evidence that Plaintiffs
even considered other locations, despite being
aware of the zoning restrictions and the
remoteness of the land. In fact, Honig testified
that, when he bought the land in 1994, he was
looking specifically for agricultural land.
After acquiring the land, he began building
immediately, without the required permits.
For years, Plaintiffs continued to use the
property without complying with the
permitting requirements.
6
See Spirit of Aloha Temple, et al. v. County of Maui, 132
4th 1148, 1157 (2025) (also concluding “the County’s
actions have not been significantly oppressive[.]”)
(citing New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of
Salinas, 29 F.4th 596, 602, 603 (9th Cir. 2022)).
Petitioner does not dispute any of these factual
circumstances on this appeal.
The evidence introduced at the second jury trial of
this case, and the record with the circuit court further
established that neither Honig or his alter ego Spirit
of Aloha Temple were ever precluded from engaging in
the practices and religious gatherings that Honig
acknowledged were central and essential to the tenets
of his faith.
Honig described the “experience of God consciousness [as] the most important thing” in his faith. App.
124a. This experience involves “com[ing] to the level of
our deepest reality[,] to be freed from the bonds of
egoism [] – and the illusion of thinking we are all
separate.” App. 151a. Honig also designates this
experience “unitive consciousness,” and admits that he
has not been prohibited from engaging in this
meditation practice on his property. App. 124a-125a,
126a. Honig also describes the practices of this belief
as group meditation, chanting, pranayama breathing,
and yoga postures. App. 153a.
Honig also testified that practicing marriage
counseling and performing nuptials [App. 133a, 170a],
teaching group meditation [App. 138a, 169a], holding
prayer circles [App. 111a, 113a, 119a, 140a, 169a,
170a], were all part of his faith. Honig acknowledged
to a jury on September 29, 2023, the second day of trial
on Petitioners’ RLUIPA and constitutional claims, that
he had been engaged in of all these aforementioned
7
essential practices and activities on his property since
his special permit was denied in 2014. App. 137a.
Moreover, both the pages on Spirit of Aloha Temple’s
website [spiritofaloha.org] and videos on its YouTube
channel depict these same essential religious practices
and activities occurring on the property since before
the denial of the special permit and up to the present
day. App. 155a, 162a-168a.2
The practices, activities, and events identified and
depicted in the spiritofaloha.org webpages and videos
on its YouTube channel include “private sacred events,”
“ceremonial gatherings,” “[w]aterfall [b]aptisms,
“[m]arriage [p]roposals,” nuptials, weddings, group
yoga and meditation, fire dancing, group gatherings
and prayer, music performances, memorial services,
and initiation rites, not exclusively. App. 155a-168a;
see also footnote 2, above.
In the mix of all of these spiritual practices and
faith-based activities, Honig admitted that performing
weddings is not essential to the practice of his faith:
A. The goal -- I'm not married to weddings,
and that's not my -- the only thing that I can
do to serve humanity. My greatest passion is
to teach meditation and to teach yoga. So -and also to have a community of people who
are like-minded and to develop the gardens
into a botanical garden. App. 123a.
Honig testified that he has distilled the essential
tenants of his faith down to a one-page document. App.
147a. Honig testified that anyone can become a member
of his faith by signing the document and e-Mailing the
2
Defense Trial Exhibits D-113 and D-115 are the videos from
Spirit of Aloha Temple’s YouTube channel. See App. 111a-120a,
162a-168a.
8
signed copy to him. App. 148a. Honig estimates that
approximately 1200 people have signed the document
and joined his faith. Id. Honig issues a newsletter to
the 1200 members who have signed up for his faith.
App. 63a. Honig currently offers services on his
property that he considers essential to those who sign
up for his faith. App. 60a-61a, 111a-120a.
There is nothing in the Maui County Code or
Hawai´i Revised Statutes that otherwise precludes
Honig or Spirit of Aloha Temple from engaging in
Honig’s faith-based practices and activities on his
property. Former Maui County Planning Director Will
Spence testified at trial that nothing in Maui’s zoning
code prohibits any persons from engaging in religious
practices on their land in the agricultural zone. App.
57a. Maui County Planning Commissioner Wayne Hedani
and several other commissioners advised Honig that
nothing prevented him from performing wedding
services for couples on his property. App. 47a-48a.
Honig, however, does not feel like this is enough, and
when asked about how he and Spirit of Aloha Temple
are burdened in the practice of their faith, Honig
admits he wants a permit to “advertise” his services.
App. 64a, 80a. When asked if he was prohibited from
engaging in his apparent interdenominational beliefs
and practices,3 Honig also testified:
3
Honig belatedly claimed to be a “Hindu” monk only after
initiating this lawsuit in 2013. Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ Complaint
does it allege that Honig is a Hindu monk, or even Hindu. App.
1a-40a. Nor does the Complaint allege any particular Hindu
rituals or religious practices in which Plaintiffs engage, let alone
that they have been precluded from engaging in. Id. At no time in
this litigation have Plaintiffs identified any doctrinal or liturgical
Hindu religious practice at all. Rather, Honig claims to recognize
9
A. Not from my personal use, but I'm
restricted only in sharing with a group of
people or advertising that I would like to hold
a program or an event. That’s what I’m not
able to do.
Q. Okay. So you can’t advertise.
A. That’s correct. App. 129a.
Honig otherwise acknowledges that he can broadcast
his religious practices and activities to the world
through his spiritofaloha.org website and YouTube
Channel. App. 64a-65a.
Petitioners’ counsel also acknowledged the essential
commercial character of the activities that Honig and
Spirit of Aloha Temple claim have been burdened faith
practices:
MR. STORZER: Oh, that’s not – that’s not
true, Your Honor. What we have established, I
believe, or what we’re certainly arguing is
that commercial weddings -- you know, the
County has talked about this idea of commercial weddings. Commercial weddings are okay
if you’re Ali’i Kula Lavender Farm. Commercial
weddings are okay if your other churches as
well. So both in terms of religion and religious
denomination, commercial weddings are
something that the County doesn’t have any
problem with, but other botanical gardens,
commercial weddings are okay.
It’s only when you're talking about Spirit
of Aloha Temple that somehow commercial
and practice all religions, Hinduism being just one among many.
App. 127a-128a.
10
weddings become[] a problem, whether it’s
respect to religious denomination or religion
generally. App. 54a-55a.
Of course, what this retreating argument by
counsel exposed, what counsel was in fact pointing to,
is the actual activity that was allegedly burdened by
denial of the land use permit, i.e., commercial
advertising.
After receiving a substantial quantity of evidence at
trial in 2023, the jury found that Honig and Spirit of
Aloha Temple failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Maui County substantially burdened
Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temples’ exercise of religion
and failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Maui County discriminated against them on the
basis of religion as protected under federal and state
constitutional and statutory authority. App. 41a-43a.
II. Legal Background
Throughout what the Petition labels as the “tortuous
path,” and over the nearly eleven-years of litigation
this case has traversed, the evidence and “totality of
the circumstances” adduced at two separate jury trials
demonstrated that Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temple
sought religious protection for what very clearly was a
commercial and profit seeking enterprise.
The district trial court below on the facts before it on
summary judgment recognized that:
It might be possible to show that a selfproclaimed religion was merely a commercial
enterprise, without the underlying theories of
man's nature or his place in the Universe
which characterize recognized religions.
Though litigation of the question whether a
11
given group or set of beliefs is or is not
religious is a delicate business,[] our legal
system sometimes requires it so that secular
may not unjustly enjoy the immunities
granted to the sacred.
See Spirit of Aloha Temple v. Cnty. of Maui, No. CV 1400535 SOM/RLP, 2023 WL 5178248 at 16 (D. Haw. Aug.
11, 2023), reconsideration denied, No. CV 14-00535
SOM/RLP, 2023 WL 5754107 (D. Haw. Sept. 6, 2023),
and rev'd in part, 132 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2025), and
aff'd in part, appeal dismissed in part, No. 23-3453,
2025 WL 943143 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (quoting
Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C. v.
United States, 409 F.2d 1146, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1969); see
also Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct.
2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), fn. 28 (“a corporation’s
pretextual assertion of a religious belief in order to
obtain an exemption for financial reasons would fail.”).
Forging the “tortured path” of this case, Petitioners
concocted and sustained a false dichotomy of “religious”
wedding versus “commercial” wedding:
Q. You had mentioned again commercial
weddings, and I was going to say just so the
jury isn’t confused, again there is no such
thing as a, quote, commercial wedding use in
Maui County zoning code or in the State of
Hawaii’s land use regulations, right?
A. Well, Maui County code has a definition of
commercial purpose, and it includes growing,
manufacturing, processing, providing services
such as weddings, providing services for
consideration or profit.
Q. I understand that.
12
A. So we would look at what Mr. Honig
wanted to do. We looked at the history of what
had taken place. Again, we went over
yesterday the volume of what he wanted to do.
And we were looking at websites with
advertising, looking at his trade names, and
we’re going this is a commercial operation.
App. 54a.
This false dichotomy was directed at supporting the
erroneous and overbroad approach Petitioners take
that RLUIPA protects against 1) regulation of any
activity that may possibly harbor a scintilla of faithbased or religious conduct, and/or 2) regulation of
any activity performed by a religious assembly or
institution that purports to support its faith-based or
religious mission. On the facts of this case, the alleged
protected activity is advertising, for what Petitioners
admit is commercial conduct incidental to and
allegedly in support of faith-based practice.
It was not the intent of the legislature that the
protections provided by RLUIPA were to be so broad:
Definition of religious exercise The definition of ‘‘religious exercise’’ under
this Act includes the ‘‘use, building, or
conversion’’ of real property for religious
exercise. However, not every activity carried
out by a religious entity or individual
constitutes ‘‘religious exercise.’’ In many
cases, real property is used by religious
institutions for purposes that are comparable
to those carried out by other institutions.
While recognizing that these activities or
facilities may be owned, sponsored or
operated by a religious institution, or may
13
permit a religious institution to obtain
additional funds to further its religious
activities, this alone does not automatically
bring these activities or facilities within the
bill’s definition or ‘‘religious exercise.’’ For
example, a burden on a commercial building,
which is connected to religious exercise
primarily by the fact that the proceeds from
the building’s operation would be used to
support religious exercise, is not a substantial
burden on ‘‘religious exercise.’’
See 146 Cong. Rec. S7774-01, S7776 (2001) (joint
statement of Sens. Hatch & Kennedy); see also
Christian Gospel Church, Inc. v. City and County of
San Francisco, 896 F.2d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 1990)
(“The burden on religious practice is not great when
the government action, in this case the denial of a use
permit, does not restrict current religious practice but
rather prevents a change in religious practice.”); see
also Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of
Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 762 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[N]o . . .
free pass for religious land uses masquerades among
the legitimate protections [that] RLUIPA affords to
religious exercise.”).
It was demonstrated at trial that Honig and Spirit
of Aloha Temple have been, are continuously, and
freely engage on the land and in the structures which
they own, lease, and inhabit, in the practices and
activities they claim are essential to their faith. The
denial of Petitioners’ special permit has not caused any
burden, let alone substantial, on Petitioners’ ability to
do so. Cf. Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v.
County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006)
(plaintiff must show that defendant’s conduct placed
“‘substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his
14
behavior and to violate his beliefs,’” or that the
defendant’s conduct had a “‘tendency to coerce
individuals into acting contrary to their religious
beliefs.’”). (quoting Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery
Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 450-451 (1988) and
Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div.,
450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981)); see also Midrash
Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 122627 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial burden occurs only
when “an individual is required to ‘choose between
following the precepts of her religion . . . and
abandoning one of the precepts of her religion . . . on
the other’”—that is, where “a regulation completely
prevents the individual from engaging in religiously
mandated activity, or . . . requires participation in an
activity prohibited by religion[.]”) (quoting Sherbert v.
Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963)).
In Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist., 445 F.3d
1166, 1188 (9th Cir. 2006), reh’g en banc denied, 455
F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2006), the court articulated the
traditional “substantial burden” test under the Free
Exercise Clause. See also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S.
at 402 (“The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands
tightly closed against any governmental regulation of
religious beliefs as such, . . . Government may neither
compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, . . . nor
penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups
because they hold religious views abhorrent to the
authorities, . . . nor employ the taxing power to inhibit
the dissemination of particular religious views[.]”).
RLUIPA employs the same test. See Episcopal
Student Found. v. City of Ann Arbor, 341 F. Supp. 2d
691, 701 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“As several courts have
observed, the RLUIPA’s history demonstrates that
Congress intended to leave intact the traditional
15
‘substantial burden’ test, as defined by the Supreme
Court’s free exercise jurisprudence.”); 146 Cong. Rec.
7774-01, 7776 (joint statement of Sens. Hatch & Kennedy)
(“The term ‘substantial burden’ as used in [RLUIPA]
is not intended to be given any broader interpretation
than the Supreme Court’s articulation of the concept
of substantial burden on religious exercise”).
Although the district court below determined that
both Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temple had standing
under RLUIPA as “persons,” a jury had already
determined that Spirit of Aloha Temple was not entitled
to protection as a “religious assembly or institution.”
App. 41a-43a.4 Nothing in RLUIPA provides that the
definition of a “religious assembly or institution” is
different for purposes its substantial burdens provision
[42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)] than it is for the statutes’
discrimination and exclusion provisions [42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(b)]. To interpret the statue otherwise is absurd.
Finally, among the circumstances surrounding
Appellants’ substantial burden claim, the factual
record supports that where they knowingly bought
and leased land in the state agricultural and conservation district, and county agricultural zone, Honig and
4
Petitioners did not appeal either of the jury verdicts in
this case. See Sananikone v. United States, 623 Fed.Appx.
324, 325 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]his court may only set aside a jury
verdict if ‘it is clear that the evidence and its inferences cannot
reasonably support a judgment in favor of the opposing party.’”)
(citing Erickson v. Pierce Cty., 960 F.2d 801, 804 (9th Cir.1992));
Applera Corp.-Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina, Inc., No. C
07-02845 WHA, 2009 WL 8755606, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009),
aff'd, 375 Fed.Appx. 12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Keeping in mind the
clear-and-convincing standard and keeping in mind the deference
we must give to jury verdicts, it would be wrong to set aside the
verdict. Simply put, Applied did not carry its burden of proof—at
least a reasonable jury could have so concluded.”).
16
Spirit of Aloha Temple had no reasonable expectation
that land could be developed and used to advertise for
and operate a commercial wedding business, retreat,
and event venue, even if questionably designated as a
“church.” See Livingston Christian Schools, 858 F.3d
996, 1004 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[t]he plaintiff ’s own actions
have also been found relevant in determining whether
a burden is considered substantial. Several circuits
have held that, when a plaintiff has imposed a burden
upon itself, the government cannot be liable for a
RLUIPA substantial burden violation) (citing Westchester
Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, 352
(2nd Cir. 2007). (emphasis added).
The court in Livingston Christian Schools held as a
matter of law that the plaintiff imposed a burden on
itself when, after its proposed classroom use was
denied, it had made an alternative property it owned
unavailable to itself by leasing that alternative
property to a third-party. In Andon, LLC v. City or
Newport News, 813 F.3d 510, 515 (4th Cir. 2016), the
Fourth Circuit Court held the plaintiffs failed to show
a substantial burden as a matter of law, because they
“knowingly entered into a contingent lease agreement
for a non-conforming property.” See Andon, 813 F.3d at
515. Specifically, the plaintiffs entered into a lease
with Andon which would have required a zoning
variance to a setback requirement for the operation of
a church. The variance request was denied. The Fourth
Circuit in Andon further noted:
We further observe that if we agreed with the
plaintiffs that the BZA’s denial of a variance
imposed a substantial burden on their
religious exercise, we effectively would be
granting an automatic exemption to religious
organizations from generally applicable land
17
use regulations. Such a holding would usurp
the role of local governments in zoning
matters when a religious group is seeking
a variance, and impermissibly would favor
religious uses over secular uses.
Andon, 813 F.3d at 516 (we emphasize that a critical
function of RLUIPA’s substantial burden[s] restrictions
is to protect a plaintiff ’s reasonable expectation to use
real property for religious purposes).
Appellants below misplaced their reliance on having
a reasonable expectation of getting their proposed use
because of the affirmative recommendation(s) from
Maui County’s Planning Department for approval to
the Maui Planning Commission. Those recommendations came well over a decade after Honig bought the
property in 1994, and several years after Spirit of
Aloha Temple in 2011 knowingly entered into a lease
for protected conservation and agriculturally purposed
land after its first special permit SUP2 2007/009 was
denied in 2010, the year before.
III. Proceedings Below
Trial of Spirit of Aloha Temple’s “equal terms” claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1) commenced on August
6, 2019. On August 23, 2019, a jury rendered a special
verdict against Plaintiffs, finding that Spirit of Aloha
Temple failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence it is a “religious assembly or institution.” App.
41a-43a. The jury also found that that Spirit of Aloha
Temple was not discriminated against as compared to
a nonreligious entity by the Maui County Planning
Commission’s application of the relevant zoning
criteria when it denied Petitioners’ special permit. Id.
Plaintiffs did not appeal this jury verdict.
18
Rather, Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court from
a prior ruling adverse to them on summary judgment,
making the contention that Hawai´i Administrative
Rule sub-§ 15-15-95(c)(2), as one of five (5) subprovisions in the rule giving guidelines for an
approving agency to consider when assessing a state
special permit application, constituted a facially
invalid, unconstitutional prior restraint. The circuit
court agreed that the language of subsection (c)(2)
allowing for an agency determination whether a
proposed special use “adversely affects” surrounding
property was too “general, flimsy, and ephemeral[.]”
Spirit of Aloha Temple, et al. v. County of Maui,
49 F.4th 1180, 1192 (2022).
Importantly, the district court’s summary judgment
ruling that Petitioners had appealed from, expressly
declined and did not make any determination either
way as to the constitutionality of sub-provision (c)(2).
Spirit of Aloha Temple, et al. v. County of Maui, 384
F.Supp.3d 1231, 1255 (Dist. Haw. 2019). Rather, it held:
[E]ven if subsection 15-15-95(c)(2) does run
afoul of the First Amendment (something
this court is expressly not ruling on),
that would not give Plaintiffs an entitlement
to receive the requested permit because
subsection 15-15-95(c)(3) [which the Planning
Commission relied on to deny SUP2
2012/0009] would still present an impediment
to such a grant. Id., 384 F.Supp.3d at 1255,
supra. (emphasis added).
The district court ruled that “the required examination [pursuant to 15-15-95(c)(3)] of the burden on
agencies with respect to ‘roads and streets, sewers,
water drainage and school improvements, and police
and fire protection’ provides a sufficiently specific,
19
narrow, objective, and definite standard for the Maui
Planning Commission to consider.” The circuit court
has likewise already observed that the remaining subprovisions of § 15-15-95(c) are “more specific
guidelines” and “more objective criteria[.]” Spirit of
Aloha Temple, 49 F.4th at 1192.
The circuit court on the first appeal also reversed the
district court’s dispositive ruling on the remaining
RLUIPA and constitutional claims in Petitioners’
Complaint, where that ruling gave preclusive effect to
legal findings by the Maui Planning Commission that
it had met the constitutional and RLUIPA standard of
strict scrutiny when the Commission denied Petitioners’
special permit. The Panel remanded the case for
further proceedings.
The remaining RLUIPA substantial burdens claim,
non-discrimination claim, and corollary constitutional
free exercise and equal protection claims were on
remand tried to a jury commencing on September 28,
2023. On October 11, 2023, the jury rendered a special
verdict against Plaintiffs, finding that both Honig and
Spirit of Aloha Temple failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Maui County substantially
burdened their religious exercise as alleged, under
either RLUIPA or under the United States and
Hawai‘i State constitutions. (Petition, App. 126a). The
jury also found that neither Honig or Spirit of Aloha
Temple were discriminated against based on religion
under any of these laws. Id.
20
REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION
I. The Ninth Circuit Court expressly considered the “totality of the circumstances”
in ruling against the substantial burden
claim as is consistent with interjurisdictional decisional law
The Petition principally argues that in deciding
whether Petitioners’ religious exercise was substantially
burdened, the Ninth Circuit Court mistakenly imposed
an evidentiary burden on Petitioners to prove that
1) they were “precluded” from exercising their faith at
any other location(s), and/or 2) that the denial of their
special permit by the Maui Planning Commission was
“arbitrary.” Petitioners argue that this requirement of
a showing “as a matter of law” is inconsistent with
other circuits that consider the “totality of the
circumstances” in deciding whether a substantial
burden has been imposed.
In its ruling on the principal RLUIPA substantial
burden claim the circuit court expressly decided:
Looking at the totality of the circumstances,
we conclude as a matter of law that the
County did not impose a substantial burden
on Plaintiffs.
Spirit of Aloha Temple, 132 F.4th at 1158. (emphasis
added).
The circuit court clearly recognized that the law
examines foremost whether Maui County’s actions
imposed a substantial burden on Petitioners’ religious
exercise.
It should be apparent to Petitioners, and it likely is,
that the circuit court’s consideration of whether Honig
and Spirit of Aloha Temple were “precluded” from
21
exercising their faith at any other location(s) and
whether the denial of their special permit was
“arbitrary,” were circumstances considered among a
number of others by the circuit court to determine
whether the actions of the Maui Planning Commission
were “oppressive” on Honig and Spirit of Aloha Temples’
exercise of their faith, or “imposed a significantly great
restriction or onus upon such exercise.” Spirit of Aloha
Temple, 132 F.4th at 1156 (citing San Jose Christian
Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th
Cir. 2004)).
The circuit court expressly noted in its review and
decision that:
We consider “the totality of the circumstances,” including, but not limited to,
whether the County’s reasons for denying the
special use permit were arbitrary and could
apply to Plaintiffs’ future applications; whether
Plaintiffs have ready alternatives or whether
those alternatives would require “substantial
uncertainty delay, or expense”; whether
Plaintiffs were precluded from other locations
in the county; and whether Plaintiffs imposed
the burden upon themselves.
Spirit of Aloha Temple, 132 F.4th at 1158 (citing
New Harvest, 29 F.4th at 602). (emphasis added).
With this framework in place, the circuit court
considered a comprehensive totality of different
circumstances in deciding whether Maui County’s
denial of Petitioners’ special permit was oppressive on
Petitioners’ exercise of their faith, including:
The limitations on the use of agricultural land
under Hawai‘i law;
22
Honig’s awareness of the zoning restrictions
when he bought the land in 1994;
Honig’s failure to consider any other sites for
the alleged religious purpose he intended for the
land;
Honig’s immediate clearing, grading, and
building on the land without any development
permits and his continued use of the property
without any land use permits;
Whether Petitioners’ proposed use of the land
would burden public agencies to provide private
roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, not
exclusively;
The narrowness of Haumana Road which
visitors would use to access Honig’s property;
The Commission’s findings that Petitioners
proposed use would increase traffic on
Haumana Road and burden public agencies;
The Commission’s concerns for the safety of
drivers and pedestrians on Haumana Road;
The absence of any streetlights, sidewalks, road
shoulder, and lane markings on Haumana Road;
The safety of pedestrians and children who
regularly walk the road;
The existence of several blind spots along
Haumana Road; and
The flooding of Haumana Road
inclement weather, not exclusively.
during
Spirit of Aloha Temple, 132 F.4th at 1157-58.
None of these circumstances were considered as
factual or legal showings or evidentiary burdens
23
required from Petitioners. Rather they were considered
in determining whether Maui County’s actions were
oppressive on religious exercise.
The circuit court correctly concluded under the legal
standard interjurisdictionally recognized that under
these circumstances Maui County’s actions were not
oppressive as to Petitioners’ religious exercise.
II. Petitioners’ argument invites this Court to
ignore the totality of the circumstances
they incorrectly assert the Ninth Circuit
Court failed to consider
It should also be apparent to Petitioners that their
attempt to narrow and misdirect this Court’s focus on
whether 1) Petitioners should have considered any
other locations for their religious exercise, and/or
2) Petitioners were required to show that the denial
of their special permit by the Maui Planning
Commission was “arbitrary” “as a matter law” not only
misstates what the circuit court held, but invites this
court to ignore the totality of the circumstances the
circuit court expressly considered.
Nowhere in the circuit court’s decision is there
language or meaning suggesting Petitioner must show
as a matter of law that they were “precluded” from
exercising their faith at other sites on Maui-island.
Nowhere in the circuit court’s decision is there
language or meaning suggesting Petitioners must
show the Commission’s decision was “arbitrary.” By
this narrow misconstruction of the circuit court’s
review and decision, Petitioners are soliciting this
Court to ignore all of the other circumstances within
the totality the circuit court expressly considered
when it affirmed the second jury verdict in this case.
24
CONCLUSION
There is no appropriate question before this Court
for review, and the petition for writ of certiorari should
be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
VICTORIA J. TAKAYESU
Counsel of Record
BRIAN A. BILBERRY
Deputy Corporation Counsel
DEPARTMENT OF THE
CORPORATION COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MAUI
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793
(808) 270-7741
victoria.takayesuhamilton@co.maui.hi.us
brian.bilberry@co.maui.hi.us
Counsel for Respondent
October 14, 2025
APPENDIX
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDIX A: Complaint, Civil No. 14-00535
SOM-WRP (November 26, 2014) .....................
1a
APPENDIX B: Verdict Form (August 23,
2019) .................................................................
41a
APPENDIX C: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
October 6, 2023 ................................................
44a
APPENDIX D: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
October 5, 2023 ................................................
50a
APPENDIX E: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
October 4, 2023 ................................................
58a
APPENDIX F: Excerpted trial Transcript,
October 2, 2023 ................................................
68a
APPENDIX G: Supplemental Excerpts
Of Record Case Nos. 23-3453 & 23-3633
(9th Cir.) ...........................................................
80a
APPENDIX H: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
October 3, 2023 ................................................ 108a
APPENDIX I: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
September 29, 2023.......................................... 121a
APPENDIX J: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
September 28, 2023.......................................... 130a
APPENDIX K: Excerpted Trial Transcript,
September 27, 2023.......................................... 149a
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
APPENDIX L: Defendant’s Trial Exhibit
D-105 ................................................................ 155a
APPENDIX M: Excerpted Defendant’s Trial
Exhibit D-113 ................................................... 162a
APPENDIX N: Excerpted Defendant’s Trial
Exhibit D-115 ................................................... 166a
APPENDIX O: Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits 135I,
135J, 135H, and 135W ..................................... 169a
APPENDIX P: Defendant’s Trial Exhibit 18 .... 171a
1a
APPENDIX A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CIRCUIT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
————
Civil No. CV14-00535
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawaii nonprofit
corporation, and FREDRICK R. HONIG,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF MAUI, and MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION,
Defendants.
————
DURRETT, ROSEHILL & MA, LLP
JONATHAN S. DURRETT (3184)
ADAM G. LANG (9375)
SHAUNA L. SILVA BELL (7004)
Davies Pacific Center
841 Bishop Street, Suite 1101
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: (808) 526-0892
Fax: (808) 533-4399
jdurrett@drmhawaii.com
alang@drmhawaii.com
sbell@drmhawaii.com
2a
STORZER & GREENE, P.L.L.C.
ROMAN P. STORZER
ROBERT L. GREENE
Applications for admission pro hac vice pending
1025 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest
Suite One Thousand
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel.: (202) 857-9766
Fax: (202) 315-3996
storzer@storzerandgreene.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE
and
FREDRICK R. HONIG
————
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawaii
nonprofit corporation, (the “Temple”) and FREDRICK
R. HONIG (“Honig”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and
through their attorneys, Durrett, Rosehill & Ma, LLP,
hereby complains of Defendants COUNTY OF MAUI,
and MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION (collectively,
the “Defendants”) as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action is commenced by Plaintiffs to
redress violations of its civil rights, as protected by the
Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection
Clauses of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.
(“RLUIPA”), and Article I §§ 4-5 of the Hawaii
Constitution caused by the Defendants’ burdensome,
discriminatory and unreasonable land use regulations
3a
and intentional conduct that has prohibited and
continues to prohibit the Spirit of Aloha Temple from
conducting religious services and activities in exercise
of its religious beliefs in already existing structures on
its property at 800 Haumana Road, Haiku, Maui,
Hawaii (the “Property”).
2. The Maui County Planning Department (the
“Planning Department” or “Department”), based on
substantial review, comments by other governmental
agencies, and proposed conditions to mitigate any land
use impacts, recommended approval of the Plaintiffs’
application for a State Land Use Commission Special
Permit (the “Permit”) to allow the religious use.
Nevertheless, the Planning Commission denied the
Permit based on the affirmative vote of three of its
eight members, and the abstaining of two of its
members.
3. By its denial of the Plaintiffs’ Permit to conduct
religious observances at the Property (which is
currently being used as a botanical garden open to the
public), the Planning Commission has determined that
groups of people may visit the Property for various
secular purposes, have the same land use impacts, and
to engage in any number of other activities permitted
by Maui County Code § 19.30A.050(B)(11), but not to
engage in religious observances.
4. Plaintiffs allege that the Planning Commission’s denial of the Permit—which satisfied all criteria
under the relevant zoning regulations—was based on
misapplication of state and local laws, ad hoc factors
specifically and specially designed to prevent religious
exercise on the Property, and unequal treatment as
compared to similarly situated entities in Maui County.
4a
5. Plaintiffs further allege that the denial of the
Permit, which would allow Plaintiffs to operate a
place of worship for religious observance, services
and education, substantially burdens the Plaintiffs’
religious exercise without using the least restrictive
means of achieving the compelling governmental
interest that the Planning Commission alleges exists
to deny the Permit.
6. Plaintiffs also allege that the Planning Commission’s application of unwritten and ad hoc “standards,”
particularly with respect to traffic standards, to deny
the Permit constitutes a prior restraint on the Plaintiffs’
protected First Amendment activity, does not provide
reasonable notice to Permit applicants of whether
proposed places of worship meet the standards for
a Permit, and is therefore vague and allows for
unbridled discretion on the part of the Commission.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, INC. is
a domestic nonprofit corporation formed under the
Laws of the State of Hawaii on September 17, 2007.
8. Plaintiff FREDRICK HONIG resides at 800
Haumana Road, Maui, Hawaii, and is a licensed
minister.
9. Defendant COUNTY OF MAUI is a local
governmental entity organized under Hawaii law.
10. Defendant MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
is a Planning Commission established pursuant to
Titles 6 and 13 of the Hawaii Statutes.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court
is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction) in that this action is brought under 42
5a
U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court
also has supplemental jurisdiction of Counts VIII, IX
and X under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for claims brought
under Hawaii law.
12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that all of the events giving rise to
the claims herein occurred in this District and the
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
District as of the commencement of this action.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs’ Religious Exercise
13. The Spirit of Aloha Temple, Inc., incorporated in
2007, is a religious assembly and institution.
14. The Temple and Honig’s religious faith and
practices are known as “Integral Yoga.”
15. Integral Yoga is a path of integral seeking of the
Divine whose adherents believe that all people are in
the end liberated out of the ignorance and its undivine
formations into a truth beyond the mind, a truth not
only of highest spiritual status but of a dynamic
spiritual self-manifestation in the universe.
16. Integral Yoga was described in several works in
the early part of the twentieth century by Sri
Aurobindo, an Indian yogi and guru.
17. Sri Aurobindo’s vision, shared by the Plaintiffs,
was the evolution of human life into a life divine. He
believed in a spiritual realization that not only
liberated man but also transformed his nature,
enabling a divine life on earth.
18. Integral Yoga International was established in
the United States, by Sri Swami Satchidananda in
1966 and is a worldwide religious organization.
6a
19. Adherents of Integral Yoga believe that the goal
and the birthright of all individuals is to realize the
spiritual unity behind the diversity throughout
creation and to live harmoniously as members of “one
universal family.”
20. This goal is attained through asanas (yoga
postures), pranayama (extension of the life force), the
chanting of holy names, self-discipline, selfless action,
mantra japa (sacred utterances), meditation, study,
and reflection.
21. Honig, also known as Swami Swaroopananda, is
a licensed minister and teacher of Integral Yoga.
22. Honig was ordained in 1977 by the acclaimed
ecumenical leader, Sri Swami Satchidananda, who was
ordained in 1949 by the renowned Sri Swami
Sivananda, Founder of The Divine Life Society and
The All-World Religions Federation.
23. For twenty years, starting at age 21, Honig
lived, studied, taught and served as a monastic
member of Satchidananda Ashrams and Integral Yoga
Institutes.
24. For the past twenty years, Honig has served the
Spirit of Aloha Temple, Botanical Gardens and Bird
Sanctuary on the north shore of Maui. The Gardens
are dedicated to living in harmony with Nature,
through alignment with its 12 Organizing Principles:
Peace, unity, gratitude, humility, respect, simplicity,
cooperation, honesty, happiness, love, responsibility,
and freedom.
25. Plaintiffs believe that these twelve universal
truths are the essence of all world religions, and also
derive inspiration from the accomplishments of orders
from varied traditions such as the Hindu Missions of
7a
Swami Vivekananda, Swami Sivananda and Swami
Satchidananda; the Christian missions of Saint
Francis, Saint Damian, Mother Teresa, Thomas
Mertin as well as the Shaker Communities; the Jewish
Missions of The Essenes; the Islamic Missions of the
Sufis; and the Buddhist Missions of The Dalai Lama
and the Tibetan Monasteries.
26. The Spirit of Aloha Temple, Inc., an Internal
Revenue Code, Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, was incorporated as a church in 2007 to further
the principles of Integral Yoga, and specifically (as
stated in its Bylaws) “No promote Individual and
Global Health, Harmony and Well-Being through
Education, Instruction, Guidance and Research.”
27. A significant element of the Temple’s ministry
is to be a living classroom for sustainable organic
horticulture and plant-based nutrition, which is in
furtherance of its religious beliefs.
28. In furtherance of these beliefs, the Plaintiffs
seek to engage in various religious practices, including
holding customary religious services such as weekly
meetings and weddings, offering classes on their
spiritual beliefs, and holding communal meals.
29. Other than the subject Property, the Temple
does not own or operate any other facilities for
purposes of its religious worship and exercise.
30. The Plaintiffs have no other location in which to
hold weekly church services.
31. The Plaintiffs have no other location to conduct
sacred programs, educational, inspirational and
spiritual, and spiritual commitment ceremonies.
32. The Plaintiffs have no other location to operate
spiritual classes.
8a
33. The lack of a place of worship severely burdens
the religious exercise of the Plaintiffs because the
Temple lacks any facility to hold its worship services,
events and classes.
34. In order to accommodate its religious exercise,
the Temple requires a facility that can accommodate
its members and others for such religious worship and
activities.
35. The Property is uniquely capable
accommodating the Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
of
The Property and Current Uses
36 The Property is approximately 11 acres located
at 800 Haumana Road, Haiku, Maui.
37. The Property is described as Tax Map Key No.
(2) 2-8-004:032.
38. The Property is located in the State
Agricultural District, Paia-Haiku Community Plan,
and the County Agricultural Zone.
39. The Property’s Land Use Category is Agriculture.
40. The Property is located within the Special
Management Area.
41. The Property is approximately one mile makai
of the Hana Highway.
42. It contains a main farm dwelling, second farm
dwelling, a potting shed, a building denominated the
Waterfall Pavilion, Potting Shed, and other accessory
buildings, all duly permitted by the County.
43. The Property is owned by the Fredrick R. Honig
Revocable Living Trust (the “Trust”).
9a
44. The Trust leases the Property to The Spirit of
Aloha Temple, Inc. through a perpetual lease that is
recorded with the State Bureau of Conveyances.
45. Currently, the property is used for limited
“secular” uses, including a botanical garden, bird
sanctuary and staff housing.
46. The Temple operates the Property in accordance
with its religious beliefs, which include aligning with
“Nature’s Organizing Principles.”
47. The Property is stewarded by a volunteer team
of “Nature Guardians,” who see God as Nature and
their service to Nature as worship.
48. This also includes promoting Hawaiian plantbased horticulture and nutrition, and restoring the
historic Taro Lo’i. Such activities are currently
permitted by the Defendants.
49. Plaintiffs additionally seek to use the Property
as a “Church” use, which would include religious
services, meetings, lectures and events for small
numbers of people.
50. The soil productivity rating of the Property
according to the Land Study Bureau is mostly “C9”
with some “E97” on a scale with “A” being the best
agricultural land and “E” the worst. H.R.S. § 205-4.5
provides different use limitations for parcels with
various soil productivity ratings, higher scores being
more restricted.
51. According to the Land Study Bureau Detailed
Land Classification for the Island of Maui (1967), the
Property is assigned an overall productivity rating of
“C”, indicating moderate productive capacity, and rRR,
indicating very low overall productive capacity.
10a
52. The Plaintiffs had previously applied (SUP
2007/0009) for a special use permit to conduct religious
activities on the Property, which was denied by the
Planning Commission on March 23, 2010 with reconsideration also denied on December 14, 2010. A findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision and order
was issued on February 8, 2012.
53. The components of Plaintiffs’ proposed religious
use at issue in Plaintiffs’ special use permit application
discussed infra are interdependent and inseparable from
the current “agricultural” uses of the Property.
54. Providing worship services, classes and ceremonies at another location would be wholly impracticable,
given Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and exercise.
55. The Temple does not have any realistic opportunity to purchase land elsewhere on Maui in order to
construct its proposed religious facility with botanical
use, and any such course of action would involve
unreasonable delay, uncertainty, and expense due to
the Defendants’ land use regulations listed infra.
The Relevant Land Use Regulations
56. The Subject Property is located in the State
Agricultural District with a Land Use Classification of
“Agricultural.”
57. A use on the Property must be permitted by the
Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Maui County Code, and
because within the Special Management Area, by the
Community Plan.
58. Permitted uses in the Agricultural District
include Agricultural Parks. Permitted accessory uses
include Parks and Open land recreation including:
hiking; noncommercial camping; fishing; hunting;
equestrian activities; rodeo arenas; arboretums;
11a
greenways; botanical gardens; guided tours that are
accessory to principal uses, such as farm or plantation
tours, petting zoos, and garden tours; hang gliding;
paragliding; and mountain biking. M.C.C. § 19.30A.050.
59. The Plaintiffs’ botanical garden on the Property
is a permitted use in the Agricultural District.
60. “Guided garden tours” are permitted on the
Property under H.R.S. § 205-2(d)(12) and as an
accessory use of “open land recreation” under M.C.C.
§ 19.30A.050(B)(11).
61. The County has informed the Plaintiffs that
“uses such as weddings, special events, seminars, group
instructions . . . are not permitted” on the Property.
62. The County has also informed the Plaintiffs
that “classes, demonstrations, conferences, and seminars on plant-based nutrition, health and well-being
(e.g., yoga, meditation)” are not permitted on the
Property.
63. Bed and breakfast homes are permitted in the
Agricultural zone in conjunction with a bona fide
agricultural operation.
64. Special permit uses in the Agricultural District
include, among others, Farmer’s markets, Public and
quasi-public institutions that are necessary for agricultural practices; Major utility facilities as defined in
section 19.04.040 of this title; Open land recreation
uses including commercial camping, gun or firing
ranges, archery ranges, skeet shooting, paint ball,
bungee jumping, skateboarding, rollerblading, playing
fields, accessory buildings and structures; Cemeteries,
crematories, and mausoleums; Mining and resource
extraction; Landfills; Solar energy facilities that are
12a
greater than fifteen acres; and Short-term rental
homes. M.C.C. § 19.30A.060.
65. H.R.S. § 205-2(d) states “Agricultural districts
shall include . . . [a]gricultural tourism on a working
farm, . . .[a]agricultural tourism activities, . . . [o]pen
area recreational facilities, . . . and [a]gricultural-based
commercial operations,” among others.
66. Churches and religious institutions are also
permitted as a special use in the Agricultural district.
67. The Plaintiff ’s application for a State Land
Use Commission Special Permit is governed by H.R.S.
§§ 205, 205A and 226, 15-15-95 H.A.R., and Maui
County Code Chapter 19.30A.
68. The relevant land use regulations permit
Plaintiffs to conduct tours on its property as part of its
botanical garden use.
69. The applicable land use regulations do not limit
the number of persons that may use the Property for
such tours.
70. The Temple does conduct such tours as part of
its botanical garden use, with an average of twenty
people participating, and up to a maximum of 120
people.
71. The certificate of occupancy for Spirit of Aloha’s
multi-purpose tent structure permits occupancy of 176
persons.
72. H.R.S. § 205-6(a) provides that a “clunty
planning commission may permit certain unusual and
reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts
other than those for which the district is classified.”
73. The Maui County Planning Department noted
that “[t]he State Land Use Law provides flexibility in
allowing for unusual conditions that have evolved
13a
since a property was classified
Agricultural District.”
in
the
State
74. Section 15-15-95 of the Hawaii Administrative
Rules lists the following guidelines established in
determining an “unusual and reasonable use”:
i. The use shall not be contrary to the
objectives sought to be accomplished by
chapters 205 and 205A, HRS, and the rules
of the Land Use Commission;
ii. The desired use would not adversely affect
surrounding property;
iii. The use would not unreasonably burden
public agencies to provide roads and streets,
sewers, water, drainage, and school improvements, and police and fire protection;
iv. Unusual conditions, trends and needs have
arisen since the district boundaries and
rules were established; and,
v. The land upon which the proposed use is
sought is unsuited for the uses permitted
within the district.
75. H.R.S. § 205-6(c) states that a “county planning
commission may, under such protective restrictions as
may be deemed necessary, permit the desired use, but
only when the use would promote the effectiveness
and objectives of this chapter; provided that a use
proposed for designated important agricultural lands
shall not conflict with any part of this chapter.”
76. Maui County Code § 19.510.070(B) states that
the standards for a special use permit to be used by
the planning commission required that each of the
following criteria must be met:
14a
1. The proposed request meets the intent of the
general plan and the objectives and policies of
the applicable community plan of the county;
2. The proposed request is consistent with the
applicable community plan land use map of the
county;
3. The proposed request meets the intent and
purpose of the applicable district;
4. The proposed development will not adversely
affect or interfere with public or private schools,
parks, playgrounds, water
5. The proposed development will not adversely
impact the social, cultural, economic, environmental, and ecological character and quality of
the area;
6. That the public shall be protected from the
deleterious effects of the proposed use;
7. That the need for public service demands created
by the proposed use shall be fulfilled; and
8. If the use is located in the state agricultural and
rural district, the commission shall review
whether the use complies with the guidelines
established in section 15-15-95 of the rules of
the land use commission of the State.
77. Maui County Code § 19.510.070(E) permits the
planning commission to “impose conditions on the
granting of a request for a special use if the conditions
are reasonably conceived to mitigate the impacts
emanating from the proposed land use.”
78. These land use regulations allow the Defendant
Planning Commission to make individualized assessments of all applications for Special Permits.
15a
79. The inherently subjective land use regulations
governing special use permits give the Defendant
Planning Commission broad discretion over any
decision on a special use permit application, enabling
it to accept or reject applications on a case-by-case
basis according to its own unwritten and ad-hoc
standards.
80. It is the policy of the State of Hawaii, as
described in H.R.S. § 205-41, that “There is a
compelling state interest in conserving the State’s
agricultural land resource base and assuring the longterm availability of agricultural lands for agricultural
use to achieve the purposes of: (1) Conserving and
protecting agricultural lands; (2) Promoting
diversified agriculture; (3) Increasing agricultural selfsufficiency; and (4) Assuring the availability of
agriculturally suitable lands, . . . .”
81. Furthermore, H.R.S. § 205-6(f) states that
“Land uses substantially involving or supporting
educational ecotourism, related to the preservation of
native Hawaiian endangered, threatened, proposed,
and candidate species, that are allowed in an approved
habitat conservation plan under section 195D-21 or
safe harbor agreement under section 195D-22, which
are not identified as permissible uses within the
agricultural district under sections 205-2 and 205-4.5,
may be permitted in the agricultural district by special
permit under this section, on lands with soils classified
by the land study bureau’s detailed land classifications
overall (master) productivity rating class C, D, E, or U.”
82. H.R.S. § 205-12 states: “The appropriate officer
or agency charged with the administration of county
zoning laws shall enforce within each county the use
classification districts adopted by the land use commission and the restriction on use and the condition
16a
relating to agricultural districts under section 205-4.5
and shall report to the commission all violations.”
83. Additionally, “[a]ny person who violates any
provision under section 205-4.5, or any regulation
established relating thereto, shall be fined not more
than $5,000, and any person who violates any other
provision of this chapter, or any regulation established
relating thereto, shall be fined not more than $1,000.”
H.R.S. § 205-13.
84. Thus, Hawaii and Maui law provide for various
mechanisms to ensure that their land use goals are
protected.
Plaintiffs’ Special Use Permit Application
85. On November 21, 2012 the Plaintiffs filed an
application (the “Application”) for a State Land Use
Commission Special Permit (SUP2 2012/0032) to
hold weekly church services for up to 20 people on
Saturdays from 10:00am to 2:00pm, operate a living
classroom for nature guardian skills for up to 23
people 4 times per week, and conduct sacred programs,
educational, inspirational and spiritual, and spiritual
commitment ceremonies such as weddings for up to 80
persons 24 times per year and up to 40 persons 24
times per year at the Property.
86. The Plaintiffs proposed to use the existing
structures for purposes of the church use.
87. Groups of people of the same size or larger are
currently permitted on the Property for non-religious
purpose of visiting the botanical garden.
88. The Plaintiffs amended their application regarding events to request only 12 events per year for up to
20 people, 12 events per year for up to 40 people, 12
17a
events per year for up to 60 people, and 12 events per
year for up to 80 people.
89. The Planning Department provided its recommendation to the Planning Commission, recommending
approval of the Application, with 21 conditions.
90. After consultation with the Maui County Planning Department, the Plaintiffs agreed to further limit
the proposed use as follows:
i. The classroom was to be limited to use by no
more than 24 persons, including staff;
ii. There were to be no more than four classes per
week, all between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
2:00 p.m.;
iii. Church services were to be limited to one per
week with a maximum of 24 attendees and
would usually be conducted on Saturdays
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
iv. No more than 48 church-related events per year,
of those no more than half could have between
25 and 40 participants and staff;
v. No more than two events with 25 to 40 persons
could be conducted per month;
vi. There could be no more than four churchrelated events per month,
vii. All church-related events were to take place
between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.;
viii. Shuttle buses were to be used to transport
participants to the church-related events that
involved between 25 and 40 participants;
18a
ix. The shuttles would use privately owned
facilities, not public ones, for drop off and pick
up;
x. There would be no more than 25 people on the
Property except for 59 days a year;
xi. The attendance would further be limited by the
waste water system’s limits;
xii. Records of events, dates, attendance and type
would be maintained and submitted to two
separate County agencies each year. Failure to
submit them could result in revocation of the
permit;
xiii. Obtaining approvals from the State Historic
Preservation Division;
xiv. Several specific Department of Health Safe
Water Drinking Branch Test results for a
variety of chemicals and bacteria;
xv. Approval of the Department of Health
Environmental Health Services Division
regarding all food consumed on the premises;
xvi. No food was to be prepared on the premises for
any event;
xvii. A parking plan had to be approved by the
Zoning and Enforcement Division and
submitted to the Planning Department;
xviii. The permit would expire on March 31, 2016,
subject to applications for renewal; and
xix. A hardened driveway approved by the Fire
Department and Department of Public Works.
91. After extensive revision of the Application from
November 2012 through February 2014, on February
19a
11, 2014 the Maui Planning Department deemed the
application complete and scheduled a public hearing
before the Maui Planning Commission for March 25,
2014.
92. On February 21, 2014, Plaintiffs mailed the
requisite notice of public hearing to owners and lessees
adjacent to the Property and across the street.
93. A notice of hearing on the application was
published in the Maui News on February 21, 2014 by
the Planning Department.
94. The Planning Department issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Recommendation”) that the Permit
be issued.
95. The Planning Department noted that no new
buildings or structures were proposed, that the church
use will use the existing structures in a shared use
arrangement, and that “[t]he church is intended to
complement and support the existing agricultural uses
of the property and the open and rustic setting of the
area.”
96. The Department also determined that “[i]f
approved with conditions, the applicant will implement
mitigative measures to limit impacts on the surrounding
area, including noise, traffic and burdens on public
service.”
97. State and County agency review comments
were provided regarding potable water availability,
wastewater capacity, traffic, police and fire department
access, archeology, and adherence with the agricultural
zoning of the Property.
98. The Department noted that the use would
“place little burden on public sewers, water systems,
drainage systems or educational facilities.”
20a
99. With respect to the narrow road conditions of
Haumana Road, the Planning Department stated: “the
Department has worked with the applicant and public
safety agencies to limit the number of visitors, events,
and hours of events.”
100. With respect to the State zoning statutes, the
State Plan, H.R.S.
i. Improving opportunities to experience natural
beauty and biodiversity for present and future
generations;
ii. Educating
residents
about
responsible
stewardship and interconnections with the
environment;
iii. Improving land use management;
iv. Preserving and enriching residents’ quality of
life;
v. Protecting the Island’s natural beauty;
vi. Improving its economy;
vii. Strengthening the Island’s sense of place; and
viii. Protecting and enhancing architectural and
landscape characteristics.
101. The Department also considered the Application
in light of the local Paia-Haiku Community Plan and
again found that it promoted the goals of that land use
plan.
102. The Department also reviewed the requirements
for a Special Use Permit in the Agricultural District,
found in H.R.S. §§ 205 and 205A. It specifically found
that the proposed use meets those standards, that it
will complement and support agricultural use, and
21a
that it will not adversely affect surrounding property
or burden public services.
103. The Recommendation noted that any concern
about possible vehicular and pedestrian traffic impact
had been addressed by both the Police and Fire
Departments. It states that “[i]n light of these
comments the Department discussed the matter with
public safety agencies and developed conditions to
mitigate the effect on traffic and public services.”
104. In order to mitigate traffic impacts along
Haumana Road, the Department of Public Safety/
Police Department recommended that the number of
visitors and hours of operation for church related
events be limited. Those limitations were adopted and
made part of the Application as finally submitted.
105. Significantly, the Department’s Recommendation
quoted the Police Department’s comment as stating:
“There is no objection to the progression of this project
at this time, from the police standpoint in regards to
pedestrian and vehicular movement.”
106. The Recommendation also noted that “the
proposed church and agricultural education uses will
complement existing agricultural uses of the property
using existing buildings and structures.”
107. The Department’s Recommendation included a
conclusion of law that “[t]he application for a State
Land Use Commission Special Permit complies with
the applicable standards for an ‘unusual and reasonable’
use within the State Agricultural District.”
108. With regard to impact on surrounding properties,
the Recommendation stated: “If approved with conditions
the applicant will implement mitigative measures to
22a
limit impacts on the surrounding area, including noise,
traffic and burdens on public service.”
109. That Recommendation further noted that
“[c]hurch or related uses are not uncommon in the
State Agricultural District under the provisions of a
State LUC Special Use Permit.”
110. Plaintiffs’ proposed use would be consistent
with the policy goals of H.R.S. § 205-41.
111. However, there was substantial public
opposition by nearby residents to the Plaintiffs’ use.
112. On March 25, 2014 the Commission held a
public hearing on the Application.
113. During the March 25 hearing and at the
request of Planning Commissioner Wakida, William
Spence, Director of the Maui Planning Department,
testified:
That botanical garden use it’s supposed
to—it’s an accessory use listed under in the
Agricultural Zoning Code. So whatever
farming, whatever agricultural activities are
going on as a part of that and that could be,
you know, agriculture is pretty broadly
defined. They could have people down there
to, you know, as with other botanical gardens
you could, you know, see the different species
and take a tour and those kinds of things.
Minutes of Maui Planning Commission, March 25,
2014 at 72.
114. There are no limitations in the relevant state
and county land use regulations that regulate the
number of persons who may attend the non-religious
use of the botanical garden.
23a
115. There are no limitations in the relevant state
and county land use regulations that regulate
specifically how persons may arrive at the nonreligious use of the botanical garden.
116. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the
following comments and motion of the Planning
Commission took place:
Mr. Freitas: I’d like to make a motion to
deny and I have a . . . (inaudible) . . . reason
why I am voting to deny. I run a tow business
and road safety is so important to me and that
road I feel is not safe with pedestrians
walking up and down the highway and people
with bicycles and what have you. And I have
been on that road with our tow truck and it is
a very narrow . . . especially when it rains. So
that’s my prime reason for making the motion
to deny the applicant.
Mr. Medeiros: I second.
Chairperson Lay: Motion by Commissioner
Freitas to deny, seconded by Commissioner
Medeiros. Any discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Wakida?
Ms. Wakida: I concur with Mr. Freitas about
the concern for safety on the road. And we’ve
heard from neighbors that they feel the road
is unsafe for a certain amount of excess traffic
which the applicant sounds like he will
generate. And as well, there seems to be some
issues raised about water and wastewater
that I think are of concern.
24a
Chairperson Lay: Any more discussion on
the motion? Director can repeat? Oh,
Commissioner Medeiros?
Mr. Medeiros: Yeah, I seconded the motion
mostly because while I respect his rights
to religion, it’s not safe. Okay, maybe the
Planning Commission, the State Department
of Health recommended all of these things to
us as satisfactory, but it’s still not safe not to
the degree where I would be comfortable with.
Okay. I respect human life. I wanna protect it.
Minutes of Maui Planning Commission, March 25,
2014, pp. 80-81 (emphasis added).
117. The motion passed with six ayes voting for
denial and two excused. The special use permit was
denied.
118. Plaintiffs thereafter requested reconsideration
of the denial.
119. The Plaintiffs submitted a reduction in the
church events in support of its request for reconsideration as follows: 6 programs per month for up to 4 hours
and for up to 24 participants, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
and 2 programs per month for up to 6 hours and up to
40 participants (1 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m, and 1 from 10
a.m. to 8 p.m.).
120. On April 8, 2014, the Commission reconsidered
the Application.
121. Plaintiffs again amended their application to
further reduce the number and size of church related
events that they would hold.
122. A motion to rescind the previous denial passed
by a vote of 5 to 1 with 2 excused.
25a
123. Plaintiffs orally amended the Application to
reduce the proposed number of church events to
include eight per month with a maximum of ten cars
per event. Two of the events could have up to 40 people
and the remaining six events could have up to 24
people. Seven of the eight events would end by 4 p.m.,
with the remaining event ending by 8 p.m.
124. The Planning Department again recommended
approval of the Application, subject to conditions.
125. At the conclusion of the deliberations on
reconsideration, a motion was made to deny the State
Land Use Commission Special Use Permit.
126. Initially, in the first vote only two members of
the Planning Commission assented to the Motion to
deny the permit. Three members abstained. Three
members dissented.
127. After this vote, the Planning Commission
determined that the Chair needed to vote and could
not abstain, so another vote was taken.
128. K. Ball assented in this second vote and voted
to deny the application.
129. The second vote was three assents to the
Motion, two abstentions, and three dissents.
130. Thus, only three of eight members of the
Planning Commission voted to deny the special use
permit.
131. However, under the Maui County Planning
Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, § 12201-24(c), an abstention (unless as a result of
disqualification for conflict of interest) is counted as an
affirmative vote. Thus the vote to deny the Permit
passed 5-3.
26a
132. On October 30, 2014, the Commission issued its
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision
and Order, SUP 2012/0032. It made the following
Conclusions of Law:
i. “[A]fter hearing testimony from neighbors that
live adjacent to or nearby the Property and after
questioning the Applicant and Consultant, the
Commission concluded that the uses requested
in the Application did not constitute an ‘unusual
and reasonable’ use in the Agricultural District.”
ii. “The Commission found that the uses proposed
in the Application would adversely affect the
surrounding properties in conflict with 15-1595(2) HAR. The Commission received substantial
negative written testimony from nearby property owners on Haumana Road and North
Holokai Road. Additionally during the hearing
nearby property owners submitted additional
oral visual and written testimony regarding
concerns about the safety of Haumana Road for
both potential visitors and property owners
along Haumana Road. The Commission found
such testimony reliable and compelling.”
iii. “The Commission found that granting the uses
would increase traffic and burden public
agencies providing roads and streets, police and
fire protection, in conflict with 15-1595(3), HAR,
and gave the following reasons for a denial of
the Application on that basis: significant
concerns about the narrowness of Haumana
Road and vehicle and pedestrian safety both to
potential visitors to the property and property
owners along Haumana Road and the fact that
and the fact that the Property is at the terminus
of Haumana Road and therefore traffic to the
27a
Property would negatively impact residents
safety and use of Haumana Road.”
133. Thus, the Planning Commission stated that it
denied the Plaintiffs’ special use permit based on the
traffic impacts of such proposal.
134. The only evidence presented to the Planning
Commission regarding traffic, other than that from the
government agencies as described above, was the
135. The Planning Commission’s decision and order
states that “[t]he Commission was concerned about the
number of objection letters received from property
owners in the nearby neighborhood and noted the
paucity of support letters from adjacent neighbors.”
136. Issues relating to Haumana Road are due to
encroachment by adjoining property owners.
137. Safety concerns regarding the Application were
addressed and confirmed by government agency
comment letters.
138. The Planning Department included as a
condition of approval:
That in order to reduce the amount of traffic
on Haumana Road, the applicant shall use a
shuttle system (vans and limousines) to bring
guests to and from the property for all events
that will have more than 25 persons in
attendance. Every effort should be taken to
shuttle or carpool event guests to all activities.
Shuttles shall use privately owned facilities,
such as hotels, for their operations such as
drop-offs and pick-ups.
139. The Plaintiffs were and continue to be willing
to accept any reasonable condition to address per-
28a
ceived impacts on traffic and other governmental
interests.
140. The Planning Commission was informed about
the applicability of RLUIPA to the Application.
141. The County, through its Planning Department,
stated that “the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA) is a federal law protecting a
person’s religious liberties and right to assembly.”
142. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission determined that the burden on the Temple’s religious
exercise was justified by the “compelling” governmental
interest in traffic.
143. The Commission’s refusal to permit religious
exercise on the Property is irrational, arbitrary,
capricious and not rationally related to any compelling
governmental interest.
144. The Commission’s stated traffic justification for
the denial of the special use permit application is
arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and does not give
reasonable notice to applicants of the standards for a
special use permit.
145. Plaintiffs made numerous concessions limiting
their proposed church use, adequately addressing any
purported governmental interests.
146. The proposed church use would have less
impact on surrounding properties and governmental
interests than the existing, permitted botanical
garden use.
147. The Planning Commission had the authority to
impose further conditions on Plaintiffs’ proposed use.
148. Another condition recommended by the Planning Department was that the “Maui Planning Com-
29a
mission may modify, suspend or revoke this permit for
good cause.”
149. The Planning Depaitment Planner Kurt
Wollenhaupt had begun to review potential conditions
of approval of the Application, including enforcement
of potential conditions and on revising the number of
permitted events on the Property.
150. However, the Planning Commission failed to
use any less restrictive means of achieving governmental interests and voted to deny the Application
outright.
Differential Treatment of Plaintiffs
151. The Maui Planning Department’s Report noted
that “[c]hurches or related uses are not uncommon in
the State Agricultural District under the provisions of
a State LUC Special Use Permit.”
152. Upon information and belief, organized wedding
services are conducted at a minimum of five other
botanical gardens on the Island of Maui, presumably
with appropriate approvals from the Defendants.
153. Upon information and belief, traffic conditions
at several of these locations are less safe than at the
subject Property.
154. Furthermore, Maui County Code § 19.30A.050.B.11
permits gatherings of many types, without limitation
as to size in the Agricultural District and even on the
subject Property.
155. Thus, the Commission’s refusal to permit
religious exercise on the Property discriminates
against religious assembly uses.
156. There are other churches on similar types of
roads in Maui County.
30a
157. For example, Kaulanapueo Church and Door of
Faith Church in Huelo, Maui are accessed by Door of
Faith Road, which at points is approximately 10 feet
wide.
158. The denial of Plaintiffs’ special use permit was
based on no objective criteria or standards for road
requirements.
159. The Planning Commission’s refusal to allow the
Temple to use its facility for religious purposes
severely impedes and prevents the Plaintiffs’ exercise
of its religion.
160. Defendants, through their land use regulations
and the actions of the Planning Commission, have
rendered the Temple’s religious exercise effectively
impracticable.
161. The use of the Property as a place of worship
would affect interstate commerce, including its use as
a site for ongoing fundraising; its receipt of charitable
donations from persons working or living outside of
the State of Hawaii; providing a place of worship for
the families of congregants visiting from other states;
providing religious education to individuals from other
states; the use of means of interstate communication
to facilitate its ongoing operations; the employment of
any part-time or full-time employees; the purchase of
goods and services related to the Temple’s ongoing
operations and maintenance; and the hosting of any
religious leaders visiting the Temple from out of state.
162. The Defendants’ actions described above all
took place under color of state law.
163. The harm to the Temple caused by the
Defendants’ laws and actions, which prevent it from
31a
operating a place of worship to accommodate its
religious needs, is immediate and severe.
164. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for
the harm and damage caused by Defendants’ wrongful
laws and actions.
COUNT I
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 — “Substantial Burdens,”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)
165. Paragraphs 1 through 163 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
166. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick
Honig of their right to the free exercise of religion, as
secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and implementing
land use regulations in a manner that places
substantial burden on the Plaintiffs’ religious exercise
without using the least restrictive means of achieving
a compelling governmental interest.
COUNT II
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 — “Nondiscrimination,”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2)
167. Paragraphs 1 through 166 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
168. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick
Honig of their right to the free exercise of religion, as
secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and implementing
land use regulations in a manner that discriminates
against the Plaintiff on the basis of religion and
religious denomination.
32a
COUNT IV
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 — “Equal Terms,”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1)
169. Paragraphs 1 through 168 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
170. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick Honig of
their right to the free exercise of religion, as secured
by RLUIPA, by treating the Plaintiffs on less than
equal terms as nonreligious assemblies and institutions.
COUNT V
United States Constitution
42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment -- Prior Restraint
171. Paragraphs 1 through 170 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
172. The standards set forth in the County of Maui’s
zoning regulations governing special permits for
places of worship, and the standards applied by the
Commission in reviewing and denying Spirit of Aloha
Temple and Frederick Honig’s Special Use Permit do
not provide a person of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to understand whether such
land uses are permitted or prohibited and, as such,
constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on
Plaintiff ’s protected expression and religious exercise
under the First Amendment. Such standards unconstitutionally afford the Commission unbridled discretion
in its review of a Special Use Permit application for a
place of worship.
33a
COUNT VI
United States Constitution
42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment -Free Exercise of Religion
173. Paragraphs 1 through 172 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
174. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick
Honig of their right to free exercise of religion, as
secured by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and made applicable to the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment, by substantially burdening
Plaintiffs’ religious exercise without using the least
restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest, and by discriminating against the
Plaintiffs on the basis of religion.
175. Defendants have further deprived and continue
to deprive the Plaintiffs of their right to free exercise
of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and made applicable to the
States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by burdening
their religious exercise in a manner that is not
rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
COUNT VII
United States Constitution
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Fourteenth Amendment -Equal Protection
176. Paragraphs 1 through 175 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
177. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick
Honig of their right to equal protection of the laws, as
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
34a
States Constitution, by discriminating against
Plaintiffs in the imposition and implementation of
their land use regulations.
COUNT VIII
Hawaii Constitution Article I § 4 -Free Exercise of Religion
178. Paragraphs 1 through 177 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
179. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick
Honig of their right to free exercise of religion, as
secured by Article I § 4 of the Hawaii Constitution by
substantially burdening their religious exercise
without using the least restrictive means of achieving
a compelling governmental interest, and by discriminating against the Plaintiffs on the basis of religion.
COUNT IX
Hawaii Constitution Article I § 5
Equal Protection of the Law
180. Paragraphs 1 through 179 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
181. Defendants have deprived and continue to
deprive the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick
Honig of their right to equal protection of the laws, as
secured by Hawaii Constitution Article I § 5 by
discriminating against Plaintiffs in the imposition and
implementation of their land use regulations.
COUNT X
H.R.S. § 91-14 Appeal from Agency Action
182. Paragraphs 1 through 181 are incorporated by
reference as if set forth fully herein.
35a
183. Defendant Maui Planning Commission’s Final
Decision and Order dated October 28, 2014 denying
Plaintiffs’ Special Use Permit was based on Findings
of Fact that were clearly erroneous and not supported
by necessary reliable, probative and substantial
evidence of the whole record.
184. Finding of Fact No. 68 provides the MPC’s basis
for denying the SUP application by stating in
pertinent part as follows:
The Commission finds that there is evidence
of record that the proposed uses expressed in
this Application should they be approved
would increase vehicular traffic on Haumana
Road, which is narrow, winding, one-lane in
areas, and prone to flooding in inclement
weather. The Commission finds that Haumana
Road is regularly used by pedestrians,
including children who use the road to access
the bus stop at the top of the road. The
Commission that granting the Application
would adversely affect the health and safety
of residents who use the roadway, including
endangering human life. The Commission
finds that the health and safety of the
residents’ and public’s use of Haumana Road
is a compelling government interest and that
there is no less restrictive means of ensuring
the public’s safety while granting the uses
requested in the Application.
185. Based on the record of the hearing, this finding
of fact appears to solely be based on the anecdotal
testimony provided by residents of Haumana Road
who neighbor the site of Spirit of Aloha Temple and as
such have significant biases to denying Spirit of
Aloha’s SUP. The Findings of Fact make no mention of
36a
the supplemental evidence of reports from the Maui
Police Department and Maui Fire Department,
disinterested expert parties, stating that they had no
objections to the SUP in regard to pedestrian and
vehicular movement. These reports were made based
on the original SUP application that included a larger
number of events, people and vehicles.
186. Disinterested reports from the Maui Police
Department and the Maui Fire Department concluded
that vehicular and pedestrian safety were not
endangered by the scope of activities proposed in
Spirit of Aloha’s SUP application.
187. The Maui Department of Planning recommended
approval of the SUP application with the reduced
events with several conditions.
188. Finding of Fact No. 68 states that Haumana
Road is “prone to flooding”; however, the evidence in
the record states that the water runs off into a culvert
and that the road drains well.
189. Finding of Fact No. 68 states that Haumana
Road is “one-lane in areas” and while this is supported
by evidence in the record, this statement fails to
account for the context that while the asphalt may
only be as wide as one-lane in certain areas, the road
still is passable as the road maintains a recorded 20foot right of way and vehicles are able to pass each
other by pulling narrowed width is the result of
encroachment by property owners along Haumana
Road.
190. Finding of Fact No. 67 described the voting
results on the Motion to Deny the State Land Use
Commission Special Use Permit from the April 8, 2014
Maui Planning Commission meeting. It states that J.
Freitas and W. Hedani assented to the Motion; M. Tsai,
37a
I. Lay, and K. Ball abstained; and J. Medeiros, P.
Wakida, and R. Higashi dissented. However, the
signatures at the end of the Decision and Order
include Commissioner Ball’s signature in the “In
Agreement” category rather than in the “Abstained”
category. All other signatures for agreement or disagreement with the Motion corresponded to how the
commissioners voted, or abstained, in the minutes of
the hearing and as reported in Finding of Fact No. 67.
191. Conclusion of Law No. 5 states, “The
Commission found that granting the uses would
increase traffic and burden public agencies providing
roads and streets, police, and fire protection . . . .” No
evidence was presented to support the finding that the
burden of public agencies providing roads and streets,
police and fire protection would be increased.
192. The Maui police and fire departments both
provided reports that were in support of the SUP
application. Therefore, this finding is not supported by
any probative or reliable evidence.
193. Conclusion of Law No. 9 states, “The
Commission further found that there were compelling
public health and safety issues implicated by the likely
significant increase in traffic attributable to the uses
proposed by the Application, creating conditions that
would be foreseeably dangerous or potentially deadly
to drivers and pedestrians, including children walking
on the road to and from the bus stop at the top, using
the small rural roadway.” These findings are not based
on probative, reliable and substantial evidence
particularly as it pertains to children walking to and
from the bus stop since the proposed start & end times
for the events included in the SUP Application do not
coincide with normal school start/end times.
38a
194. Conclusion of Law No. 9 states, “The
Commission found that these compelling public health
and safety issues could not be adequately addressed by
the implementation of any permit condition or use
restriction,” to support its position that the denial of
the SUP was the least restrictive means of furthering
the compelling governmental interest in protecting the
health, lives and safety of the public. However, while
the Commission based its findings primarily on the
narrowness of Haumana Road, little if any discussion
was conducted pertaining to conditions regarding
making the road wider or safer. Therefore, less
restrictive means were not explored.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
this Court grant the following relief:
1. A declaration that the denial of the Spirit of
Aloha Temple and Frederick Honig’s Special Use
Permit application is void, invalid and unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the Free Exercise
and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Hawaii
Constitution Article I §§ 4 and 5;
2. A declaration that the standards set forth in the
land use regulations governing Special Use Permit
applications for religious exercise, and the standards
applied by the Commission in reviewing and denying
the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick Honig’s
Application are an unconstitutional prior restraint on
protected expression and religious exercise under the
First Amendment;
39a
3. An order sustaining Plaintiffs’ zoning appeal
pursuant to H.R.S. 91-14, and finding the Planning
Commission’s action in denying Plaintiffs’ Special Use
Permit application to be unlawful;
4. An order directing the Planning Commission to
grant the Spirit of Aloha Temple and Frederick Honig,
Inc. the Special Use Permit necessary to conduct
church activities on the Property as applied for in its
Application;
5. An order enjoining the Defendants, their
officers, employees, agents, successors and all others
acting in concert with them from applying their laws
in a manner that violates the Free Exercise and Free
Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the equivalent protections of the Hawaii
Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, or undertaking any and
all action in furtherance of these discriminatory and
disparate acts, and specifically enjoining the
Defendants to approve all plans and applications
submitted by the Plaintiffs in furtherance of its
development of the Property without delay;
6. An award of compensatory damages against
Defendants in favor of the Spirit of Aloha Temple and
Frederick Honig, Inc. in such amount as the Court
deems just for the loss of the Plaintiffs’ rights under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Hawaii
Constitution incurred by the Spirit of Aloha Temple
and Frederick Honig, and caused by the Defendants’
laws and actions;
40a
7. An award to the Spirit of Aloha Temple and
Frederick Honig, Inc. of full costs and attorneys’ fees
arising out of Defendants’ actions and land use
decisions and out of this litigation; and
8. Such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and appropriate.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; November 26, 2014.
/s/ Jonathan S. Durrett
JONATHAN S. DURRETT
ADAM G. LANG
SHAUNA L. SILVA BELL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE
and FREDRICK R. HONIG
41a
APPENDIX B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
————
CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM/RLP
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF MAUI,
Defendant.
————
Verdict Form
We the jury in the above entitled matter find (please
mark appropriate blanks):
1) Has Plaintiff Spirit of Aloha Temple proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that Spirit of Aloha
Temple is a religious assembly or institution?
X
Yes
No
If you answered “Yes” to Question 1, skip question 2
and go to Question 3. If you answered “No” to Question
I, go on to Question 2.
42a
2) Has Defendant County of Maui proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that Spirit at Aloha
Temple is not a religious assembly or institution?
X
Yes
No
Please note that your answers to Questions 1 and 2
cannot both be “Yes,” but they may both be “No”
(although they need not be). Go on to Question 3.
3) Has Plaintiff Spirit of Aloha Temple proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that, with respect to
accepted zoning criteria, Defendant County of Maui
treated Plaintiff Spirit of Aloha Temple on less than
equal terms as compared to the way the County
of Maui treated a similarly situated nonreligious
assembly or institution?
X
Yes
No
If you answered “Yes” to Question 3, skip question 4
and sign and date this Verdict Form. If you answered
“No” to Question 3, go on to Question 4.
4) Has Defendant County of Maui proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that, with respect to
accepted zoning criteria, it did not treat Plaintiff Spirit
of Aloha Temple on less than equal terms as compared
to the way the County of Maui treated a similarly
situated nonreligious assembly or institution?
X
Yes
No
Please note that your answers to Questions 3 and 4
cannot both be “Yes,” but they may both be “No”
(although they need not be). Please sign and date this
verdict form.
43a
/s/ [Illegible]
Signature of Jury Foreperson
August 23, 2019
Date
44a
APPENDIX C
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
————
CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM-WRP
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawaii nonprofit
corporation, and FREDRICK R. HONIG,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF MAUI and MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
and STATE OF HAWAII,
Defendants.
————
Honolulu, Hawaii
October 6, 2023
————
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL (DAY 8)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUSAN OKI
MOLLWAY, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
ADAM G. LANG, ESQ.
CLARISSE M. KOBASHIGAWA, ESQ.
Durrett Lang Morse, LLLP Pacific Guardi
an Center Mauka Tower
737 Bishop Street, Suite 1850
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
45a
ROMAN P. STORZER, ESQ.
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Storzer & Associates, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW #1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
[2] APPEARANCES: (CONTINUED)
For the Defendants:
BRIAN A. BILBERRY, ESQ.
Department of the Corporation Counsel
County of Maui
200 S High St Fl. 3
Wailuku, HI 96793
Official Court Reporter:
Gloria T. Bediamol, RPR RMR CRR FCRR
United States District Court
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript
produced with computer-aided transcription (CAT).
[3] INDEX
PLAINTIFF WITNESSES:
PAGE NO.
WAYNE HEDANI
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LANG
5
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BILBERRY
21
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LANG
60
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BILBERRY 64
RANDALL OKANEKU
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LANG
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BILBERRY
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LANG
66
122
139
46a
DEFENSE WITNESS:
PAGE NO.
MARILYN NIWAO
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BILBERRY 144
* * *
[20] with Swaroop about his application previously?
A In the course of the commission’s proceedings, I
indicated to him and to the commission that, in my
opinion, his activities would not be prevented from
happening, in terms of conducting marriage ceremonies
between two people.
Q But did you tell him that if it hadn’t been for the
weddings that you would have rejected his application?
A
It wasn’t for the –
Q Let me rephrase. Did you tell Swaroop that if it
wasn’t for the weddings he was conducting on the
property that you would have voted to approve the
application?
A
I never told him that.
MR. LANG: I have no further questions question,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
Mr. Bilberry.
THE COURT: So this is another witness where I
think there is an agreement between the parties, is
that right, about Mr. Bilberry’s examination including
both cross-examination within the scope of Mr. Lang’s
direct plus whatever direct questioning Mr. Bilberry
could do in his own case in chief. Is that the
agreement?
47a
MR. LANG: In an effort to speed things along, Your
Honor, yes, that is correct.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 3.
* * *
[32] unless I did not hear the answer to the first
question, and counsel appears to be testifying.
MR. BILBERRY: It’s cross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. You can
answer. THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q So you do believe that Mr. Honig’s personal
activity in marrying a couple on his property is in fact
a religious activity?
A
Yes.
Q
You told Mr. Honig that he was free to do that?
A Exactly. Several people on the commission told
him that.
Q Thank you. Did you take into consideration
Mr. Honig’s religion when you voted to deny his
application?
A
No.
Q As I understand it, you weren’t completely clear
what Mr. Honig’s religion was?
A Right. I understand that he focuses on 12
principles that he talks about – 12 different areas in
his botanical garden that he dedicates to 12 principles
which are shared by all religions. And he said his own
religion was to worship nature. I don’t know how that
relates to the 12 principles or the 12 different religions
48a
that he was advocating for each of those areas within
his botanical garden.
Q
Okay. But you didn’t doubt his beliefs?
* * *
[34] Q And he wasn’t precluded from doing so,
correct?
A
No.
Q And, again, you advised him that he was free to
take small groups of people onto his property on a
botanical garden tour, or for whatever reason, take
them to his waterfall pavilion, or anywhere else he
wanted to on his property, and perform a wedding
ceremony?
THE COURT: Okay, hold on.
MR. LANG: Objection, Your Honor. Leading is one
thing. This is counsel testifying, lacks foundation as to
taking people to the botanical gardens. I just object to
the question as lacking foundation, and counsel is
testifying.
THE COURT: Actually –
MR. BILBERRY: I’ll withdraw it.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q You testified earlier that you personally advised
Mr. Honig that if he wanted to take a couple on his
property with a small group into a botanical garden
tour and marry them, he was free to do that?
A
Exactly. He’s free to do that today.
Q And as far as you recall, his second application
was much like the first?
49a
A It was very much like the first. They had deleted
some things.
50a
APPENDIX D
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
————
CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM-WRP
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawaii nonprofit
corporation, and FREDRICK R. HONIG,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF MAUI and MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
and STATE OF HAWAII,
Defendants.
————
Honolulu, Hawaii
October 5, 2023
————
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL (DAY 7)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUSAN OKI
MOLLWAY, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
ADAM G. LANG, ESQ.
CLARISSE M. KOBASHIGAWA, ESQ.
Durrett Lang Morse, LLLP
Pacific Guardian Center Mauka Tower
737 Bishop Street, Suite 1850
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
51a
ROMAN P. STORZER, ESQ.
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Storzer & Associates, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW #1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
[2] APPEARANCES: (CONTINUED)
For the Defendants:
BRIAN A. BILBERRY, ESQ.
Department of the Corporation Counsel
County of Maui
200 S High St Fl. 3
Wailuku, HI 96793
Official Court Reporter:
Gloria T. Bediamol, RPR RMR CRR FCRR
United States District Court
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript
produced with computer-aided transcription (CAT).
[3] INDEX
PLAINTIFF WITNESS:
PAGE NO.
WILLIAM SPENCE
RESUMED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. STORZER
5
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BILBERRY
95
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. STORZER
145
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY
MR. BILBERRY
173
DEPOSITION OF JOHN RAPACZ WAS READ
TO THE JURY
177
52a
EXHIBITS:
PAGE NO.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 47 was received in evidence
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15 was received in evidence
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12 was received in evidence
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 145 was received in evidence
16
19
34
155
* * *
[11] weddings?
A
Yes.
Q Have you ever seen any application for a special
use permit that involved weddings that was so limited
in scope as – as this ultimate request?
A There are always limitations on scope based on
the facts of the particular location. But, yes, this is –
this is – at least what Fred offered here is – is pretty
limited.
Q And again, I think we went over this yesterday,
but if he did not abide by these conditions, his permit
could have been revoked, right?
A It could have been. That involves a very long
process with the Planning Commission and –
Q
But he could have lost the permit.
A
It’s possible.
Q Okay. Mr. Spence, at this point after
reconsideration was granted and after the scope of the
request went down even further with respect to
weddings, because I believe the Planning Commission
or Planning Department in general didn’t have an
issue with the other uses on the property, correct?
MR. BILBERRY: Your Honor, that’s – well, never
mind. Never mind.
53a
BY MR. STORZER:
Q Let me withdraw that and focus and rephrase
that question.
It was mainly the wedding activity that the County
was [12] concerned with; is that correct?
A
No.
Q
I thought that’s what you testified to yesterday.
A No, it was – I mean, the special use permit was
for all of his activities.
Q
For the entire church?
A For the church, for the commercial weddings.
You know, we were concerned about the buildings with
no building permits. I mean we were concerned with
all of that –
Q
Okay. And just so –
A
– the water system.
Q
Just so the jury isn’t confused –
MR. BILBERRY: Your Honor, could you ask Mr.
Storzer to stop interrupting Mr. Spence?
THE COURT: I – I hear you. I think the witness
paused in his answer, so counsel thought he was done.
BY MR. STORZER:
Q Mr. Spence, I apologize if I cut you off. I thought
you had finished your answer.
A
No worries.
Q
But if you have more to add, please do so.
A
Okay. Please ask the next question.
54a
Q You had mentioned again commercial weddings,
and I was going to say just so the jury isn’t confused,
again there is no such thing as a, quote, commercial
wedding use in Maui County [13] zoning code or in the
State of Hawaii’s land use regulations, right?
A Well, Maui County code has a definition of
commercial purpose, and it includes growing,
manufacturing, processing, providing services such as
weddings, providing services for consideration or
profit.
Q
I understand that.
A So we would look at what Mr. Honig wanted to
do. We looked at the history of what had taken place.
Again, we went over yesterday the volume of what he
wanted to do. And we were looking at websites with
advertising, looking at his trade names, and we’re
going this is a commercial operation.
Q I understand, Mr. Spence, but that wasn’t my
question. My question was, is the term “commercial
wedding” a term that exists in any land use regulation
that applies here?
A
No.
Q Okay. So let me get back to the Planning
Commission. After the Planning Commission granted
reconsideration and after there was further discussion,
and after there was further reduction in the special
events to the extent that you haven’t seen before with
any other application, do you believe that Mr. Honig
and the Spirit of Aloha Temple could reasonably have
believed that the application could be granted?
A
I can’t say what Mr. Honig thought.
Q No, I’m asking you, Mr. Spence, do you believe –
let me
55a
* * *
[70] the basis of religion or religious denomination.
THE COURT: But the only unequal treatment you
can point to is the handling of the permit.
MR. STORZER: Oh, that’s not – that’s not true, Your
Honor. What we have established, I believe, or what
we’re certainly arguing is that commercial weddings –
you know, the County has talked about this idea of
commercial weddings. Commercial weddings are okay
if you’re Ali’i Kula Lavender Farm. Commercial
weddings are okay if your other churches as well. So
both in terms of religion and religious denomination,
commercial weddings are something that the County
doesn’t have any problem with, but other botanical
gardens, commercial weddings are okay.
It’s only when you’re talking about Spirit of Aloha
Temple that somehow commercial weddings becomes
a problem, whether it’s respect to religious denomination
or religion generally. I think that that’s a very clear
argument, and it falls under the nondiscrimination
claim.
THE COURT: Right. But the commercial wedding
issue is part of denying the permit. So the only action
that you’re pointing to is denial of the permit, and the
denial of the permit was not seen as treatment of
Spirit of Aloha Temple on less than equal terms as
compared to the lavender farm.
MR. STORZER: But that –
THE COURT: I’m very concerned that we are – you
* * *
56a
[119] Q And can you characterize for us what you
meant?
A Originally Mr. Honig wanted – I forget, it gets
blurry – originally he wanted 48 events every year,
some with 80, some with 40.
Q And when you say some with 80 and some with
40, you mean some with 80 people, some with 40
people?
A Yes, with people attending those events. And for
a number of months, sometimes daily we will get
emails from Mr. Honig changing that. It got very
complex. We tried to accommodate him – when I say
“we,” I mean the Planning Department – we tried to
accommodate him over and over again.
And ultimately we said, Okay, this is what – I’m
overanswering. Ultimately the Planning Department
said, This is what, you know, we’re – we’re going to
recommend, and just drew the line. Because it kept
going and going and things changed so often, we just
said, Okay, we need to stop this. We’re going to
recommend this.
Q And do you have any knowledge or
understanding as to whether Mr. Honig had been
landing a helicopter on his property?
A Yes. Back in 2000 and – I think it was for that
2007 application, neighbor complaints were that
helicopters were flying in brides and grooms and
landing on the property.
Q And it’s true that Haumana Road is a singlelane road?
A
That’s correct.
* * *
57a
[145] Q
Mr. Spence, are ag – sorry, are religious
practices precluded in the agricultural district?
A You mean – if I could clarify that, do you mean
that people cannot practice religion or their personal
beliefs in an ag zone?
Q Yeah, the question is, is an individual or a
small group of people, are they prohibited from
exercising or engaging in their religious practices in
the agricultural zone?
A
No, they’re not.
Q It does not require a special permit for people to
engage in simple religious practices in the agricultural
zone?
A
No, there – there’s no permit required for that.
MR. BILBERRY: Thank you, Mr. Spence.
THE COURT: Okay. He might be redeemed.
MR. BILBERRY: Was that – actually it was more
than one question.
MR. STORZER: I counted two, Your Honor.
MR. BILBERRY: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay, then you know, I don’t know
about your future.
Mr. Storzer.
MR. STORZER: Thank you, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. STORZER:
Q
Mr. Spence.
58a
APPENDIX E
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
————
CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM-WRP
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawaii nonprofit
corporation, and FREDRICK R. HONIG,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF MAUI and MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
and STATE OF HAWAII,
Defendants.
————
Honolulu, Hawaii
October 4, 2023
————
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL (DAY 6)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUSAN OKI
MOLLWAY, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
ADAM G. LANG, ESQ.
CLARISSE M. KOBASHIGAWA, ESQ.
Durrett Lang Morse, LLLP
Pacific Guardian Center Mauka Tower
737 Bishop Street, Suite 1850
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
59a
ROMAN P. STORZER, ESQ.
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Storzer & Associates, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW #1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
[2] APPEARANCES: (CONTINUED)
For the Defendants:
BRIAN A. BILBERRY, ESQ.
Department of the Corporation Counsel
County of Maui
200 S High St Fl. 3
Wailuku, HI 96793
Official Court Reporter:
Gloria T. Bediamol, RPR RMR CRR FCRR
United States District Court
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript
produced with computer-aided transcription (CAT).
[3] INDEX
PLAINTIFF WITNESSES:
PAGE NO.
FREDRICK R. HONIG
RESUMED REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. STORZER
13
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY
MR. BILBERRY
59
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. STORZER
118
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY
MR. BILBERRY
118
60a
WILLIAM SPENCE
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STORZER
EXHIBITS:
120
PAGE NO.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 187 was received in evidence
24
Defendants’ Exhibit 105 was received in evidence 108
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 was received in evidence
136
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 56 was received in evidence
142
* * *
[60] about.
Q Okay. Well, he asked you about these last few
weddings that occurred in 2011 through 2015 in order
to demonstrate that the numbers of weddings you
were doing had diminished significantly. Do you recall
that?
A
Yes.
Q Okay. And you said that you had done a few
weddings in these years for close friends and family.
Do you remember that?
A
Yes.
Q Now, if you look at this summary we have, it
shows that the wedding that occurred on September 6,
2011, was a couple from Texas. Do you see that?
A
Yes.
Q
Who – who were they?
A I can’t possibly remember, you know, who I
married in 2011, who that would have been.
Q
Even if they were friends and family?
A
I can’t remember things like that.
Q
Okay. Do you have friends and family in Texas?
61a
A I have friends and family all over the world. We
have 900 members of our organization who don’t live
in Hawaii.
Q Okay. So when you say “friends and family,”
you’re referring to those 900 people as well?
A
Yes.
[61] Q Okay.
A They are my friends and family. I don’t have a
personal family. My friends and family are the people
who are the members of our organization.
Q And you indicated that in addition to the 900
you identified elsewhere than Maui, you have a total
of 1200 members?
A
Approximately.
Q And those are the people you were referring to
when you talk about friends and family.
A
Yes.
Q So when you say that you’re still providing
religious services and engaging in religious practices
and religious exercise with friends and family, you
mean as many as 1200 people.
A I don’t keep regularly – necessarily have contact
with all those people, but I consider all those people
my friends and family.
Q Right. So when you testified when your counsel
was questioning you that you’re still providing
religious services, religious practices, and religious –
and engaging in religious exercise with friends and
family, you meant all 1200 of those people, correct?
A Those 1200 people, I – if those people asked me
to serve them, I would try to serve those people.
62a
[62] Q Okay, thank you. If you look at wedding
number 586 on Defense Exhibit 123, that’s a couple
from California. Do you see that?
A
Yes.
Q
Do you know who they were?
A I can’t remember. That was – that was over a
decade over ago.
Q Okay. And if you look at 587, it was a couple
from New Jersey. Do you know who they were?
A
No.
Q And if you look at 588, it was another couple
from California. Do you know who they were?
A
No.
Q And if you look at 590, it does look like there was
a couple from Maui. Do you know who they were?
A
I can’t remember things like that.
Q And then 591, it was another couple from
California. Do you remember who they were?
A
No.
Q You do indicate – you did indicate that you do
issue a newsletter, correct?
A
Yes.
Q And you indicated that newsletter goes to all of
your members, correct?
A
Yes.
[63] Q So it goes to as many as 1200 people?
A
Yes.
63a
Q So you have a pretty broad base of members
who can participate and can be advised of through
these newsletters of events and religious exercises and
religious practices that are occurring on your property,
correct?
A No, because we don’t necessarily send advertisements to those people. We send mostly updates. We
just tell them what we’re doing. So we’re not
advertising to them to come and do a program with us.
We’re not advertising programs. We’re more or less in
our newsletters giving the news of what we are doing
here and what activities have happened, like that
when you saw –
Q
Okay, that answers the question.
So any of those 1200 members is being advised of
what’s happening at your property through the
newsletter.
A For instance, those videos for the 1920 – for
2021, the highlights, you know –
Q Mr. Honig, we’re talking about the newsletter –
we’re talking about the newsletter right now.
A
That’s what I’m talking about too.
THE COURT: I thought you were talking about
videos now.
THE WITNESS: I’m saying when we – when those
videos, the 2021 and 2022 videos, we send them out at
New Year’s to
* * *
[66] THE COURT: I got your question.
MR. BILBERRY: Sorry, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
64a
Answer the question.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, you may have to pretty
the question.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q So you are able to do what you say you want to
be able to do as your religious practice, which is engage
in practices and exercise that you call religious on your
property with groups of 10 to 15 people that you can
then broadcast out to the entire world on your web
page, your Facebook page, or your YouTube channel,
correct?
A We’re not able to – if I were to advertise for a –
say for a teachers training course that I would like to
do at the gardens, I believe that I would be issued a
fine for that.
I have never been told by the Planning Department
that I have the right to do a teachers training course
or even to advertise to do a yoga class. Just to – if I
wanted to advertise and say, Come here for a yoga
class, I’m not permitted to do that. I am not permitted
to advertise for a meditation course to be taught at the
gardens.
Q
But you are doing – you are doing yoga –
MR. STORZER: Your Honor, I don’t think the
witness was finished answering the question.
* * *
[69] create an income stream to be able to fulfill its
mission. It means that all the money that comes in
for – to the organization is used for the purpose of the
mission of the organization.
Q Okay, Mr. Honig, when your counsel was asking
you about the two videos that showed highlights from
65a
2021 and highlights from 2022, he asked you isn’t it
true that those videos only show you with groups of
two to four people, and you corrected him and you said
no, there were groups of about 15 to 20 in those videos
in 2021 and 2022, and we saw that there were more
than one occasions of those groups.
And you’ve indicated that those were religious
practices, correct?
A
Yes.
Q And we saw pictures of groups of 15 to 20 people
in the – posed in the religious gesture that you called
as indicating namaste, correct?
A
Yes.
Q And then we also saw images of the service of
food which you called Soulution, which is embracing
and sharing vegetarian nutrition that has been going
on in ‘21 and ‘22?
A
Yes.
Q You could broadcast all that live on your
YouTube channel, correct?
A
Yes.
* * *
[109] modified in the manner I’ve articulated.
MR. BILBERRY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. I
would like to publish D-105 to the jury.
THE COURT: You may do so. But you’re going to
have to skip over that one page.
MR. BILBERRY: Melissa, let’s unpublish it, and
we’ll take out – we can extract page 6 really quickly.
66a
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q
Okay, Mr. Honig –
MR. BILBERRY: Or, Your Honor, I would now
request to publish Defense Exhibit 105 to the jury.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. STORZER: I’m sorry, Your Honor, I didn’t notice
at the end there appears to be a declaration or
something.
THE COURT: No, that will be taken out.
MR. STORZER: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: Right, we had this discussion for a
previous exhibit. That’s just an authentication.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q All right. Mr. Honig, the pages that we have
shown you today and which we’re going to go through
with the jury, this is – these are pages that are on the
Spirit of Aloha Temple’s web page currently, correct?
A
Yes.
Q And the first page we’re looking at here is the
home page [110] of the website?
A
Yes.
MR. BILBERRY: And if you could go to the second
page, Melissa.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q What we’re looking at here is also current
content on Spirit of Aloha Temple’s website?
A It’s just – just a part of it. Like what you’re
seeing here, I think that there were six items, and this
67a
is just two of the items in that that you put on this
page. There wasn’t one page that had just these two.
Q Fair enough. But Spirit of Aloha Temple is
currently offering private sacred events at the
property, correct?
A
In certain circumstances.
Q And private sacred events would include events
such as the event being depicted in this photograph,
correct?
A
For members only.
Q
Who are these two in the photograph?
A That is a photo of a wedding that happened very
long ago, and I don’t remember their names, but I was
the minister for their wedding.
Q
Okay. Do they live here on Maui?
A
No.
Q
Where do they – where do they come from?
A
I don’t remember.
68a
APPENDIX F
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
————
CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM-WRP
————
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, a Hawaii nonprofit
corporation, and FREDRICK R. HONIG,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF MAUI and MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
and STATE OF HAWAII,
Defendants.
————
Honolulu, Hawaii
October 2, 2023
————
TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL (DAY 4)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUSAN OKI
MOLLWAY, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
ADAM G. LANG, ESQ.
CLARISSE M. KOBASHIGAWA, ESQ.
Durrett Lang Morse, LLLP
Pacific Guardian Center Mauka Tower
737 Bishop Street, Suite 1850
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
69a
ROMAN P. STORZER, ESQ.
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Storzer & Associates, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW #1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
[2] APPEARANCES: (CONTINUED)
For the Defendants:
BRIAN A. BILBERRY, ESQ.
Department of the Corporation Counsel
County of Maui
200 S High St Fl. 3
Wailuku, HI 96793
Official Court Reporter:
Gloria T. Bediamol, RPR RMR CRR FCRR
United States District Court
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Proceedings recorded by machine shorthand, transcript
produced with computer-aided transcription (CAT).
[3] INDEX
PLAINTIFF WITNESS:
PAGE NO.
FREDRICK R. HONIG
RESUMED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BILBERRY
EXHIBITS:
5
PAGE NO.
Defense Exhibit 101 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibits 81, 82, 84 and 85 were
received in evidence
Defendants’ Exhibits D-22 and D-23 were
received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 88 was received in evidence
36
52
66
68
70a
Defense Exhibit 123 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 14 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 9 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 16 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 17 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 139 was received in evidence
Defense Exhibit 140 was received in evidence
70
82
115
145
155
176
178
* * *
[17] to come to what are the annual reports that were
filed by – well, first actually –
MR. BILBERRY: Yeah, go ahead, scroll a little more,
Melissa. Okay, right there.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q First we’re going to come to what are
applications for trade names. And we have discussed
these before.
So as president of Well Being International, Inc., you
applied for several trade names under the name of this
aegis or under the name of this nonprofit corporation,
correct?
A
Yes.
Q And those three trade names were, the first one
we’re looking at here on the screen, which is Maui Gay
Weddings, right?
A
Yes.
MR. BILBERRY: And if you scroll down, Melissa, to
the next page. Keep going.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q
Another one you applied again for the –
MR. BILBERRY: Scroll up just a little bit.
71a
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q
The next year 2000 –
MR. BILBERRY: No. Sorry, down – no, up. Upside
down.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
[18] Q In 2003, you again applied for a trade name
for Maui Gay Weddings, right?
A
Oh, is this a different year?
Q
I believe so.
MR. BILBERRY: Why don’t we scroll back up to the
first one so we can double-check the year.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q So it looks like you applied for the trade name
or Well Being International, Inc., you through you
applied for the trade name Maui Gay Weddings in
2002. Do you see that?
A
Yes.
MR. BILBERRY: And then if you scroll down again,
Melissa, to the next application.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q And then it looks like in 2003, you applied again
for the trade name Maui Gay Weddings, correct?
A
Yes.
MR. BILBERRY: And then if you scroll down,
Melissa, to the next application. It looks like in – go on
down to the date.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q In 2003, you applied for a second trade name, A
Marriage Made in Heaven, correct?
72a
A
Yes.
MR. BILBERRY: And then if you scroll down to the
next [19] application, Melissa.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q It looks like you then also applied in 2003 for a
third trade name, Maui Wedding Planners?
A
Yes.
MR. BILBERRY: And then if you scroll down,
Melissa, I believe there may be one more application.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q And then in 2007 you applied again for the
trade name A Marriage Made in Heaven, correct?
A
Yes.
Q
And if you look at the –
MR. BILBERRY: Scroll back up to the Maui
Wedding Planners application, Melissa. Yeah, right
there, keep going. And stop just before Mr. Honig’s
signature there.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q That’s your signature on the application, Mr.
Honig?
A
Yes.
Q
And it’s dated May 28, 2003?
A
Yes, it’s my signature.
Q Okay. And this is an application for the trade
name Maui Wedding Planners, correct?
A
Yes.
73a
Q And when you look at number point 7, it says,
“The nature of the business for which the trade name
is being used,” and it [20] says “wedding planning and
services.”
A The other one said counseling, and this one
should –
Q
We’re looking at –
THE COURT: You’re talking over each other again.
Let him finish.
Go ahead, you can answer.
THE WITNESS: I noticed that all the other ones
said counseling and wedding ceremonies or services.
This one doesn’t say counseling, it should have, but
what it says on here is wedding planning and services.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q Right. It says wedding planning and services,
correct?
A
Yes.
Q
And we’ll go ahead and in fairness to you –
MR. BILBERRY: Scroll up to the first one, Melissa,
so we can see what Mr. Honig was referring to.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q If you look at this one for A Marriage Made in
Heaven, it says counseling and marriage ceremonies.
MR. BILBERRY: Okay. And scroll up, Melissa, to the
next one.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q And if you look at the first application for Maui
Gay – or the second application for Maui Gay
Weddings, it
ceremonies.
says
74a
counseling
and
commitment
* * *
[22] Q Well, okay, let’s break it down more. You used
the trade name Maui Wedding Planners to advertise
for weddings in the Yellow Pages, correct?
A I remember that we did do some advertisement
in the Yellow Pages, but I’m not sure if I thought it was
under A Marriage Made in Heaven.
Q Well, you did do Yellow Page ads with the trade
name A Marriage Made in Heaven as well, right?
A
I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?
Q So you did do – you do remember advertising in
the Yellow Pages with the trade name A Marriage
Made in Heaven, correct?
A I remember that we did at one point advertise
in the Yellow Pages because that was before the
internet. There was a time that, you know, the internet
had – wasn’t up yet. And so we did advertise our
services in the Yellow Pages, yes.
Q Okay. Well, the
incorporated in 2002.
A
Sorry?
Q
Withdrawn.
first
trade
name
was
Okay. So you do recall that you advertised in the
Yellow Pages through the trade name A Marriage
Made in Heaven, correct?
A I’m not positive which – like I know that we did
not advertise for – I believe that that’s the one that we
advertised for.
75a
* * *
[26] THE COURT: So if you’re refreshing recollection, tell the witness to close the deposition, ask him to
testify with his refreshed recollection. Otherwise, the
witness is continuing to look at the deposition. I’m not
so sure he’s testifying with refreshed recollection. So
you continue to say you’re refreshing, do the refreshing
procedure.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q Before you close it, Mr. Honig, let’s put a
bookmark in there so you can get back to it quickly.
Okay. Now, is your recollection refreshed at having
testified that you used the trade name A Marriage
Made in Heaven to advertise in the Yellow Pages?
A
Yes.
Q And is your recollection refreshed of having
used A Marriage Made in Heaven as a trade name to
advertise on the internet?
A
Yes.
Q
And then – let me just – okay.
Is your recollection refreshed at having used the
trade name Maui Wedding Planners to advertise in the
Yellow Pages?
A
I don’t recall that.
Q And is your recollection refreshed at having
used Maui Wedding Planners to advertise on the
internet?
A Yes, we used Maui Wedding Planners on the
internet.
76a
[27] Q Okay. But you just don’t recall using Maui
Wedding Planners in the Yellow Pages.
A
I don’t recall that.
Q Okay. So you did use both the trade names A
Marriage Made in Heaven and Maui Wedding
Planners to advertise for weddings on the internet.
A
Yes.
Q And you used the trade name A Marriage Made
in Heaven to also advertise in Yellow Pages.
A I don’t believe we did them both at the same
time. We did one, and then we switched to another.
Q Fair enough. But you did use A Marriage Made
in Heaven to also advertise in the Yellow Pages at
some point.
A
Yes.
Q Okay. Mr. Honig, let me ask you, why does an
organization with a religious purpose need to have
three registered trade names to advertise for weddings?
MR. STORZER: Your Honor, I believe – objection on
the lack of foundation. I don’t believe it’s been
established that he used all three to advertise.
MR. BILBERRY: I’ll withdraw that question.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q Why does an organization with a religious
purpose need to advertise on the internet through two
trade names, one being A Marriage Made in Heaven
and one being Maui Wedding Planners?
* * *
[40] A Yes.
Q
And weddings? And weddings?
77a
A
I don’t see that.
MR. BILBERRY: Maybe scroll up a little bit,
Melissa. No, no, I’m sorry. There we go.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q
Yeah, do you see that, weddings?
A
Yes.
Q Okay. And then she’s also offering a honeymoon
cottage at our oceanfront waterfall nature sanctuary,
right?
A
Yes.
Q And if you look at the contact, it’s
MauiWeddingPlanners.com, which is one of your trade
names, right?
A
Yes.
Q Doesn’t “honeymoon cottages available at our
oceanfront waterfall nature sanctuary” refer to your
property?
A
Yes.
Q
Thank you.
And if you look at her web page – and again, if you –
anytime you want the paper copy so you can scroll at
your discretion, but if you look at her wedding page –
her website pages advertising for personal retreats,
accommodations, cottages, nowhere in these web pages
does it mention religious purpose, does it? A religious
purpose.
* * *
[42] MR. STORZER: I’m finding it warm.
THE COURT: I’m sorry. I don’t know. I’m okay. She’ll
check the thermometer.
78a
What? You want to call?
She’ll call.
MR. BILBERRY: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. BILBERRY:
Q Okay. So the web pages don’t mention the word
“religion,” correct?
A It doesn’t mention, but it’s all about what our
religion is. She’s teaching classes in stress management, yoga, meditation and spiritual weddings, and
those are the services that we offer under our mission
of Well Being International, which is a spiritual
nonprofit organization.
Q And in these web pages your sister through
Well Being International, Inc., is also offering vacation
rentals, correct?
A Accommodations for people who are partaking
in our services.
Q So vacation rentals for people who are getting
married on the property?
A
Yes.
Q And there’s a daily and weekly rate for that,
right, according to the web pages?
* * *
[47] A They what?
Q They cleared a space on your property so that
they could land the helicopter there.
A
No, they did not.
79a
Q You don’t recall that there was a space cleared
on the property approximately 280 feet from the
shoreline with a big “X” marked on it?
A We didn’t clear that for that purpose. It was just
a lawn that we have – it’s still there, it’s just a lawn.
And we had an X in the lawn. And as I mentioned
before, perhaps between five and ten times a helicopter
did land there.
Q And one of those times the helicopter landed
there, you had flown out the owner of Federal Express
to attend a catered lunch event at a waterfall on the
property, correct?
A
Yes.
Q And you yourself were picked up twice on the
property to be flown out to conduct weddings at other
locations, correct?
A
I only remember one time.
Q
Do you remember testifying that it was twice?
A
I don’t remember that.
Q
Okay. Well, we’ll just pass on that.
And so you never obtained a permit to have a
helicopter land on your property prior to allowing
helicopters to bring guests to the property, correct?
MR. STORZER: Objection, lack of foundation.
80a
APPENDIX G
* * *
[103] to be able to do is figure out way a way to
preserve it to move it. forward.
CHAIRMAN HEDANI: Thank you very much, Mr.
Honig. Any additional questions from the Commission
for the Applicant? Mr. Marfdin.
COMMISSIONER MARFDIN: Yeah. You
mentioned you have a negative cash flow.
just
MR. HONIG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MARFDIN: Before we went to
lunch, there was testimony that you made $400,000 a
year or this.
MR. HONIG: Yeah, that – we lost $20,000, I have –
I am not – I have a C.P.A. doing our bookkeeping.
Everything is kept in there. I have not – you know, we
spent thousands of dollars on advertising trying
because our business was going down. And we’re not
able to advertise in the papers because of you people.
Like otherwise, we could put in the paper let’s have an
event here, something like that, but we have not.
So, we spent all of this money on advertising and
running a business, And I’m not the greatest businessman It’s not my forte. I’m a monk, and done my –
CHAIRMAN HEDANI: Mr. Marfdin.
MR. HONIG: I've done my best to, you know, to keep
this financially moving.
CHAIRMAN HEDANI: Mr. Marfdin.
* * *
81a
DIRECTOR HUNT: The question, I interpret it is if
you deny the application, will Mr. Honig cease his
operations? And we can’t speak on behalf of Mr. Honig.
We can tell you that we will try to enforce the laws that
the county has adopted. To be up front, enforcement is
a difficult task. And there’s been some criticism of the
department regarding enforcement in this particular
application and others.
And it’s a legitimate criticism, but we all have to
understand the limitations and constraints that
enforcement entails. Gathering evidence is difficult.
We have six inspectors for all three islands. We have a
past history or culture of permissiveness and turning
the other way, looking the other way. Our process is
somewhat complaint driven. We have some
organizations in our community and even editors of
papers that have openly suggested that enforcement of
our laws is wrong.
So it’s – it’s a challenging situation. The department
will enforce the law. We’ve instructed Mr. Honig to
cease his operations until he gets the necessary
permits. Whether he complies with that or not is up to
him.
CHAIRMAN HEDANI: Mr. Starr.
COMMISSIONER STARR: Yeah. I was just looking
at an advertisement that was apparently downloaded
from the Internet today. It’s dated today. I don’t know
where it [110] came from. But it is advertising for
wedding service on this property. I believe it’s $9,900
for the package. And so, it is being – business is being
solicited as we speak. And I’m wondering if that is
legal. I’m asking the director.
CHAIRMAN HEDANI: Director Hunt.
82a
DIRECTOR HUNT: Well, we would have to take a
look at the advertisement. I’m not questioning the
authenticity of that advertisement, but we have to be
objective in our investigation, make sure somebody
didn’t gin it up or that it’s not outdated or whatever.
So, I can’t make a conclusion as to whether Mr. Honig
is operating illegally currently. We will certainly
investigate and continue to investigate. I believe the
staff planner contacted the enforcement officers, and
they have been investigating.
In this particular case, we will talk to our inspectors
to make sure that this one is not just sliding through
the cracks. Apparently, it needs a little bit more
attention without picking on anyone unfairly.
CHAIRMAN HEDANI: Any additional discussion? A
question for the director. If the motion to deny is
approved, can the Applicant resubmit.
DIRECTOR HUNT: He can resubmit. He would
have to go through the process from step one. So, he
would have to submit a new application, new fees. We
would send that out
83a
Maui Accommodations
Keel Nui Botanical Gardens
Property Description
Our beautiful ocean front cottages have an exquisite
view of the ocean from the entire house. A couple can
feel like they are on the tropical vacation of their
dreams. You wake up in the morning to the sights and
sounds of the ocean and nature.
Our ocean front studios have exquisite views of the
ocean. from the interior and some have wrap around
covered decks. We have many walking paths that go
along creek beds, through our botanical garden, past
our on site waterfall and along the cliffs edge. During
different seasons we have fresh fruit and Rowers
available.
84a
If you’d like, we can schedule an on-site massage, yoga
or meditation session with one of Maui’s best. {please
inquire about pricing). We also nave private and group
surf lessons available for never-evers to advanced levels.
Close to us is both “JAWS” the famous big wave surf
beach, and ‘Twin Falls’ a beautiful hiking path that
winds along a fresh water stream to two incredible
waterfalls.
We are Located only nine miles from Paia. Paia has a
wealth of good restaurants, beaches and shopping.
Haiku is five miles and Makawao is 15 miles, All a
short distance and offer many activities for a tropical
vacation.
We can also nave an oceanfront waterfall pavilion for
weddings, romantic engagements or vow renewal. We
have onstaff wedding planners and event consultants.
(Please inquire for more information). Plan your next
retreat or group function with us.
We have six vacations rentals available on our lovely
premises and are able to accommodate up to 12 people
in separate private ocean front cottages (two of the
cottages are not oceanfront), Please call us for more
information.
Please contact directly at following locations
Phone: Carrie 808-542-4100
Email: carrie@mauiestate.com
Website: www.mauiestate.com/cottages
85a
Amenities
Mini-Kitchenettes
Some cottages have outdoor showers and outdoor
bathtubs
Washer/Dryer
Lanai
Wireless Internet
Oceanfront- excluding Nature and Tree Cottage
No Pesticides used on property
Bedrooms: 1
Total No. of Guests; 2 Rates
weekday: $75 - $200
Week: $0
Some cottages have indoor & outdoor bathtubs and
Indoor and outdoor showers, located on botanical
gardens
No Pets Allowed
Smoking Not Allowed
145/night + tax, $2175/month. Aloha Cottage
135/night + tax, $2025/month. Garden Level Cottage
200/night + tax, $3000/month. Angel Cottage
135/night + tax, $2025/month. Ocean Cottage
135/night + tax, $2025/month. Tree Cottage (located in
tropical gardens)
75/night + tax, $1125/month. Nature Cottage (located
in tropical gardens)
60.00 Cleaning Fee for ail rentals; One night free for
weekly reservation.
0% Kamaaina Discount w/HI ID. Reservations must be
paid in full before arrival.
Note: Until confirmed, rates are subject to change
without notice.
86a
87a
155 Haumana Rd. at Hana Highway google.map
yahoo.map
Location: Haiku
It’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or
other commercial interests
88a
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Business Registration Division
1010 Richards Street
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4D, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96810
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
(Chapter 482, Hawaii Revised Statutes)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK
1. Applicant’s Name: Well Being International, INC.
Applicants Address: 655 Haumana Rd, Haiku, Hawaii
96708
(Including city, state, and zip code)
2. Registration is (check one) New OR Renewal
3. Status of Applicant (check only one):
Sole Proprietor Corporation Partnership
LLC LLP Unincorporated Association
Other(explain):
4. If applicant is an entity, list state or country of
incorporation/formation/organization:
Hawaii
5. Trade Name is: Maui Gay Weddings
6. Applicant is (check one): Originator of name OR
Assignee (one to whom name was assigned to by
another)
7. Nature of business for which the trade name is being
used: Counseling and commitment ceremonies
89a
I certify, under the penalties set forth in Section 4823.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that (check one):
I am the applicant; or I am the
assistant
(Office Held)
of the applicant named in the forgoing application and
that the statements made in the application are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Fredrick R. Honig
(Signature)
JUL 23, 2002
(Date)
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE.
Application must be certified by the applicant if an
Individual. For corporations, application must be
signed by an authorized officer of the corporation.
General or limited partnerships must be signed by a
general partner. For LLC, must be signed and certified
by a manager of a manager-managed company or by a
member of a member-managed company. LLP must be
signed and certified by a partner.
(DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY)
Certificate of Registration No. 4002924
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, this Certificate of
Registration is issued to secure the aforesaid applicant
the use of the said TRADE NAME throughout the
State of Hawaii for the term of: One (1) year(s) from
July 23, 2002 to July 22, 2003
90a
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE NAME WITH THE
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GRANT YOU THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADE NAME
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS STATE OF HAWAII
Dated: July 23, 2002
/s/ [Illegible]
(Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs)
91a
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Business Registration Division
1010 Richards Street
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4D, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96810
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
(Chapter 482, Hawaii Revised Statutes)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK
1. Applicant’s Name: Well Being International, INC.
Applicants Address: 655 Haumana Rd, Haiku, Hawaii
96708
(Including city, state, and zip code)
2. Registration is (check one) New OR Renewal
3. Status of Applicant (check only one):
Sole Proprietor Corporation Partnership
LLC LLP Unincorporated Association
Other(explain):
4. If applicant is an entity, list state or country of
incorporation/formation/organization:
Hawaii
5. Trade Name is: Maui Gay Weddings
6. Applicant is (check one): Originator of name OR
Assignee (one to whom name was assigned to by
another)
7. Nature of business for which the trade name is being
used: Counseling and commitment ceremonies
92a
I certify, under the penalties set forth in Section 4823.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that (check one):
I am the applicant; or
I am the assistant President
(Office Held)
of the applicant named in the forgoing application and
that the statements made in the application are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Fredrick R. Honig
(Signature)
APR 14, 2003
(Date)
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE.
Application must be certified by the applicant if an
Individual. For corporations, application must be
signed by an authorized officer of the corporation.
General or limited partnerships must be signed by a
general partner. For LLC, must be signed and certified
by a manager of a manager-managed company or by a
member of a member-managed company. LLP must be
signed and certified by a partner.
(DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY)
Certificate of Registration No. 4002924
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, this Certificate of
Registration is issued to secure the aforesaid applicant
the use of the said TRADE NAME throughout the
State of Hawaii for the term of: TEN (10) year(s) from
July 23, 2003 to July 22, 2013.
93a
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE NAME WITH THE
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GRANT YOU THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADE NAME
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS STATE OF HAWAII
Dated: April 14, 2004
/s/ [Illegible]
(Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs)
94a
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Business Registration Division
1010 Richards Street
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4D, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96810
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
(Chapter 482, Hawaii Revised Statutes)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK
1. Applicant’s Name: Well Being International, Inc.
Applicants Address: 655 Haumana Rd, Haiku, Hawaii
96708
(Including city, state, and zip code)
2. Registration is (check one) New OR Renewal
3. Status of Applicant (check only one):
Sole Proprietor Corporation Partnership
LLC LLP Unincorporated Association
Other(explain):
4. If applicant is an entity, list state or country of
incorporation/formation/organization:
Hawaii
5. Trade Name is: A Marriage Made in Heaven
6. Applicant is (check one): Originator of name OR
Assignee (one to whom name was assigned to by
another)
7. Nature of business for which the trade name is being
used: Counseling and Marriage ceremonies
95a
I certify, under the penalties set forth in Section 4823.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that (check one):
I am the applicant; or I am the
President
(Office Held)
of the applicant named in the forgoing application and
that the statements made in the application are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Fredrick R. Honig
(Signature)
APR 14, 2003
(Date)
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE.
Application must be certified by the applicant if an
Individual. For corporations, application must be
signed by an authorized officer of the corporation.
General or limited partnerships must be signed by a
general partner. For LLC, must be signed and certified
by a manager of a manager-managed company or by a
member of a member-managed company. LLP must be
signed and certified by a partner.
(DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY)
Certificate of Registration No. 4002924
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, this Certificate of
Registration is issued to secure the aforesaid applicant
the use of the said TRADE NAME throughout the
State of Hawaii for the term of: One (1) year(s) from
APR 15, 2003 to APR 14, 2004
96a
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE NAME WITH THE
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GRANT YOU THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADE NAME
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS STATE OF HAWAII
Dated: APR 15, 2003
/s/ [Illegible]
(Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs)
97a
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Business Registration Division
1010 Richards Street
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4D, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96810
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
(Chapter 482, Hawaii Revised Statutes)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK
1. Applicant’s Name: Well Being International, Inc.
Applicants Address: 655 Haumana Rd, Haiku, Hawaii
96708
(Including city, state, and zip code)
2. Registration is (check one) New OR Renewal
3. Status of Applicant (check only one):
Sole Proprietor Corporation Partnership
LLC LLP Unincorporated Association
Other(explain):
4. If applicant is an entity, list state or country of
incorporation/formation/organization:
5. Trade Name is: Maui Wedding Planners
FRH
6. Applicant is (check one): Originator of name OR
Assignee (one to whom name was assigned to by
another)
7. Nature of business for which the trade name is being
used: Wedding Planning & Services
98a
I certify, under the penalties set forth in Section 4823.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that (check one):
I am the applicant; or
I am the President of Well Being International, Inc.
(Office Held)
of the applicant named in the forgoing application and
that the statements made in the application are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/s/ Fredrick R. Honig
(Signature)
May 28, 2003
(Date)
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE.
Application must be certified by the applicant if an
Individual. For corporations, application must be
signed by an authorized officer of the corporation.
General or limited partnerships must be signed by a
general partner. For LLC, must be signed and certified
by a manager of a manager-managed company or by a
member of a member-managed company. LLP must be
signed and certified by a partner.
(DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY)
Certificate of Registration No. 4013186
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, this Certificate of
Registration is issued to secure the aforesaid applicant
the use of the said TRADE NAME throughout the
State of Hawaii for the term of: One (1) year(s) from
Jun 29, 2003 to Jun 28, 2004
99a
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE NAME WITH THE
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GRANT YOU THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADE NAME
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS STATE OF HAWAII
Dated: Jun 29, 2003
/s/ [Illegible]
(Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs)
100a
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Business Registration Division
1010 Richards Street
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4D, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96810
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
(Chapter 482, Hawaii Revised Statutes)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK
1. Applicant’s Name: Well Being International, Inc.
Applicants Address: 655 Haumana Rd, Haiku, HI
96708, USA
(Including city, state, and zip code)
2. Registration is (check one) New OR Renewal
3. Status of Applicant (check only one):
Sole Proprietor Corporation Partnership
LLC LLP Unincorporated Association
Other(explain):
4. If applicant is an entity, list state or country of
incorporation/formation/organization: Hawaii
5. Trade Name is: A Marriage Made in Heaven
6. Applicant is (check one): Originator of name OR
Assignee (one to whom name was assigned to by
another)
7. Nature of business for which the trade name is being
used: COUNSELING AND MARRIAGE CEREMONIES
101a
I certify, under the penalties set forth in Section 4823.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that (check one):
I am the applicant; or
I am the President (Office Held of the applicant
named in the forgoing application, and that the
statements made in the application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Fredrick R. Honig
(Print Name)
Fredrick R. Honig
(Signature)
07/16/2007
(Date)
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE.
Application must be certified by the applicant if an
Individual. For corporations, application must be
signed by an authorized officer of the corporation.
General or limited partnerships must be signed by a
general partner. For LLC, must be signed and certified
by a manager of a manager-managed company or by a
member of a member-managed company. LLP must be
signed and certified by a partner.
(DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY)
Certificate of Registration No. 4055386
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
TRADE NAME
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482,
Hawaii Revised Statutes, this Certificate of
Registration is issued to secure the aforesaid applicant
the use of the said TRADE NAME throughout the
State of Hawaii for the term of five years from July 16,
2007 to July 15, 2012.
102a
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE NAME WITH THE
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GRANT YOU THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADE NAME
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS STATE OF HAWAII
Dated: July 16, 2007
/s/ [Illegible]
(Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs)
103a
Def. Exhibit 88
STATE/COUNTRY
Alabama
Alasaka
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
G
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.