Utah Government Records Request: Fill & Download for Free

Snowden only released a few government records that pointed to evidence of illegal government surveillance programs.Some of the methods are common knowledge among techies and people who read a lot of news on this subject. Other exact methods are still secret to this day, but again people with technical expertise in these areas can easily imagine how it is done.Bottom line is that all of this is done by cooperation between telecommunications firms and the government. Most of it is enabled and required by our laws. Telecommunication firms are required by law to support law enforcement and Homeland Security requests under supposedly strict guidelines.How is this technically possible? Well, if it's possible for companies like AT&T and Google to transmit all this data and store your messages for you to retrieve them under normal conditions then it isn't much more work to make a copy of all of it. Think about it, just for the normal internet to work, data must be copied and inspected and searched and stored at dozens of steps from source to destination.If you want to know more you should really Google it. Google terms like warrantless wiretapping, snowden metadata, Endace, Narus, Mark Klein, NSA Utah, etc.

Since there was no Clinton-Obama “uranium for cash” deal, that’s a very quick one to answer.No.And justifiable outrage over one misdeed after another is not an “emotional meltdown”. Just as there is nothing mature or adult about deliberately turning one’s back on them. Or are we to understand that conservatives aren’t bothered by DT’s informing the Phillipines government where US nuclear subs are, which is very classified info? Or the emerging evidence that Jared Kushner sought a communications back-channel to Moscow, one using Russian technology to escape US intelligence surveillance, and said nothing about it on his security application?I think a certain degree of consternation over these things is not completely inappropriate.No uranium was shipped to Russia! Not by the Clintons, not by Obama, not by anybody. I don’t know who keeps resurrecting that one, but it’s a fantasy.What the Russians were after was a percentage of ownership in the Canadian-owned mine (in Utah, I believe) “Uranium One” — which, despite the name, mines other things beyond uranium (the US doesn’t have that much natural uranium anyway). This involved deals and analyses and permissions on several hands, including Kazakhstan, Canada, the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and finally the Senate Foreign Investments committee. One of the members of that Committee was Hilary Clinton. They voted to allow the purchase of a controlling share of the mine. Since then, Uranium One has been reported to be a lot busier than it had been before.And just for your info, if there had been any plan to ship any uranium out, a whole different Senate Committee would have been involved. And I think you’ll find that Clinton wasn’t on that Committee.I have to say it’s extremely strange to me that anybody could look at the coziness of the current Oval Office with Moscow, to the point where Putin can request that DT host both the Russian ambassador and the Russian foreign minister in the Oval Office, and DT not only does so but boots out the US media while allowing the Russian media to stay (this much is obviously on the record) — then spills some foreign-sourced intelligence in front of those Russians… and apparently have no problem with that at all!But at the same time, it seems that same person can go apoplectic about an imaginary sale of US uranium to Russia, at least if Obama or Clinton can be labelled as making that sale happen.Supposing the US actually had sold any uranium to Russia, a little more of it in their hands (their natural reserves are larger than the US’s) would have made little enough difference.But leaking out US classified intelligence to top-level Russian officials, including foreign-sourced intelligence, is a very serious matter and can be very dangerous! Do I really need to say, to anybody, that it’s so extremely serious that it demands investigation into whether it constitutes treason?

In Utah, here is how it’s done.First, see Utah Code § 30-3-3. Award of costs, attorney and witness fees—Temporary alimony.(1) In any action filed under Title 30, Chapter 3, Divorce, Chapter 4, Separate Maintenance, or Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 1, Cohabitant Abuse Act, and in any action to establish an order of custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or division of property in a domestic case, the court may order a party to pay the costs, attorney fees, and witness fees, including expert witness fees, of the other party to enable the other party to prosecute or defend the action. The order may include provision for costs of the action.(emphasis added)(2) In any action to enforce an order of custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or division of property in a domestic case, the court may award costs and attorney fees upon determining that the party substantially prevailed upon the claim or defense. The court, in its discretion, may award no fees or limited fees against a party if the court finds the party is impecunious or enters in the record the reason for not awarding fees.(3) In any action listed in Subsection (1), the court may order a party to provide money, during the pendency of the action, for the separate support and maintenance of the other party and of any children in the custody of the other party.(4) Orders entered under this section prior to entry of the final order or judgment may be amended during the course of the action or in the final order or judgment.The following principles governing an award of attorney’s fees under Utah Code § 30-3-3 is taken from the Utah Supreme Court case of Dahl v. Dahl, 345 P.3d 566 (Utah 2015):In Utah, attorney fees are awardable only if authorized by statute or by contract.” Dixie State Bank v. Bracken, 764 P.2d 985, 988 (Utah 1988).Section 30-3-3(1) of the Utah Code authorizes courts to award attorney fees and costs in divorce cases if doing so would “enable the other party to prosecute or defend the action.” “Such an award must be based on evidence of the receiving spouse's financial need, the payor spouse's ability to pay, and the reasonableness of the requested fees.” Levin v. Carlton, 2009 UT App 170, ¶ 27, 213 P.3d 884.The party requesting an award of fees has the burden of providing such evidence. Griffith v. Griffith, 959 P.2d 1015, 1020-21 (Utah Ct.App.1998).The decision of whether to award attorney fees pursuant to section 30-3-3 of the Utah Code rests in the sound discretion of the district court.When determining the financial need of the requesting spouse, we “generally look to the requesting spouse's income, including alimony received as the result of a divorce decree; the property received via the property distribution award; and his or her expenses.” Kimball v. Kimball, 217 P.3d 733, ¶ 46 (Utah Ct.App. 2009)When evaluating the reasonableness of a request for attorney fees pursuant to section 30–3–3, courts look to a variety of factors.Reasonable attorney[ ] fees are not measured by what an attorney actually bills, nor is the number of hours spent on the case determinative in computing fees.... A court may consider, among other factors, the difficulty of the litigation, the efficiency of the attorneys in presenting the case, the reasonableness of the number of hours spent on the case, the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services, the amount involved in the case and the result attained, and the expertise and experience of the attorneys involved.Cabrera v. Cottrell, 694 P.2d 622, 624–25 (Utah 1985); see also Utah R. Prof'l Conduct R. 1.5(a) (establishing factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of an attorney's fees).