First of all, given the timing of its formation, the P.U.E.O., Inc. was obviously formed solely to try and participate in the contested case hearing and the Petitioners submit that such an attempt is clearly improper. On March 31, 2016, the BLNR appointed the Honorable Riki May Amano, Judge (ret.) as the Hearing Officer in the instant proceeding. According to the Articles of Incorporation of P.U.E.O., Inc., attached as Exhibit “A” to its Instant Motion, Richard Ha, Jr., Incorporator, signed the Articles of Incorporation on the very same day of the Honorable Hearing Officer’s appointment. On April 8, 2016, TMT International Observatory, LLC, filed its Motion to be admitted as a party in the contested case hearing. According to the State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (“DCCA”) records, P.U.E.O., Inc. was registered with the DCCA on April 12, 2016. On May 16, 2016, on the same day as the first scheduling conference before the Honorable Hearing Officer, P.U.E.O., Inc. submitted its instant motion to intervene.
The corporate purposes and powers of the Articles of Incorporation of P.U.E.O., Inc., although including such things as (a) to share the interaction of Hawaiian culture and science, (b) to research and educate the public on the interaction of Hawaiian culture and science and to inspire exploration, and (c) to further educational opportunities for the children of Hawai’i in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, make no specific reference to Mauna Kea, nor the impacts of the TMT project on the corporation. P.U.E.O., Inc., also does not provide any other information about what it has conducted or performed, to date, as a corporate entity other than the formation of the corporation, seemingly, for the sole purpose of trying to intervene in the instant contested case hearing. The corporation has not shown how the TMT CDUP will so directly and immediately affect the corporation as the corporation was just formed. Again, the individual board members of the corporation have not petitioned or moved to be admitted as individuals in the instant proceedings and P.U.E.O., Inc., also is not an unincorporated association of community members like in PASH, a case cited by P.U.E.O., Inc. in its Motion, with members of the association who could show that they were specifically, personally and adversely affected by agency’s action, in any event. See Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission, 79 Hawai’i 246, 900 P.2d 131 (1993).
As for the assertions made by the four individuals, who apparently are directors of the newly formed P.U.E.O., Inc., Richard Ha, Jr. doesn’t even claim to be a cultural practitioner on Mauna Kea, and he is the “incorporator.” As for the other three individuals, they seem to assert improved access to the Mauna as a result of telescope development, in general, for any of their asserted cultural practices related to the Mauna. The comparisons they make are essentially pre-development of the summit road access versus access post-development of the summit road. This has nothing to do with the proposed addition of another telescope on the Mauna and, thus, even their individual claims are irrelevant to the instant case and do not establish any specific, personal and adverse affect on any of their practices by the TMT project and the CDUP. The assertions and implications in their declarations that telescope development on the Mauna is somehow a recognized cultural and traditional practice firmly rooted in custom and tradition under HRS Sections 1-1, 7-1 and/or Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution, and Hawaii case law, is completely nonsensical, unfounded, and absurd.” –Wuderman memorandum
Source: Big Island Video News