Honolulu attorney and candidate for Honolulu prosecutor, Meghan Kau, bristles at the suggestion that an offer she made to assist people cited for violating COVID emergency rules is like “buying votes.”

That was one of the criticisms aimed at Kau on the “My Kailua” Facebook page, where the administrator solicited readers to submit any citations received to be forwarded to Kau for her “assistance.”

I asked Kau what she was doing to assist people, and how she would respond to the critics. She was direct and straightforward in her responses.

Kau said she has provided “hundreds of people” with a form letter that a person who has been charged with violating emergency rules can submit to the court contesting the charges and asking that they be dismissed.

She said it is just another instance of pro bono assistance she has offered families who can’t afford an attorney, both before and after becoming a candidate for prosecutor.

“That’s what I do on a daily basis,” she said, and went on to say she has helped obtain services for families trying to find missing children, or who have children with mental health or drug issues, and who cannot afford a lawyer.

“Lawyers are expensive,” she said, referring to her own regular hourly rate of $350. She said her law practice makes plenty of money, giving her the ability to offer time to assist families with advice and support.

Kau’s financial disclosure, required of all candidates for public office, reports personal earnings from her law practice of between $200,000 and $299,000 during 2019.

“I’m not trying to buy votes,” she said, expressing irritation at the criticism her offer of assistance has generated. “I helped people before becoming a candidate, and I’m not going to change.”

Kau said most citations are already being dismissed when they get to court. But she has provided a generic boilerplate letter that a person who has been charged with violating emergency rules can submit to the court contesting the charges.

The letter begins with some fill-in-the-blank portions for the person’s name, citation number, offense date, and the date and time of their court date.

Then it states:

This charge should be dismissed because it is vague and ambiguous. It is not clear under the statute’s language what was or was not permitted on April 19, 2020. The ticket that was issued states that I violated Haw. Rev. Stat. § 127A-25 but does not indicate what I did to violate that statute. Indeed, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 127A-25 itself is
extremely vague….

The letter then goes on to cite Section 127A-25 at length. This is the law authorizing emergency rules during an emergency. The sections cited are very general.

The letter concludes: “This language does not give me enough information to understand the charge against me. As such, this charge should be dismissed with prejudice.”

Kau also provided a sample email she sends when forwarding a copy of the form letter. Her email explains the person will still have to appear in court, or more likely appear for the court hearing via Zoom. She advises that most citations are already being dismissed, even without use of a letter like this. If the person does use her form letter, she advises them not to say anything other than to refer to the letter asking for the charge to be dismissed.

“Do not agree to a plea agreement and do not pay a fine,” her email advises. “If you plead guilty to this charge, you will FOREVER have a full misdemeanor on your record. It does not go away. If the court dismisses the case, then great—there will be nothing more to do.”

If the case is not dismissed at that time, she advises the person to contact her.