|
United States Files Appellate Brief in Wolfchild Case |
|
On April 11, 2008, the United States filed its appellate brief in the Wolfchild case. The United States is appealing a lower court decision that the Department of Interior had mismanaged Mdewakanton Dakota trust land at Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian Community and Lower Sioux Indian Community. Basically, the United States failed to ensure that all the Indian trust beneficiaries benefitted equally from the casinoes at the three locations rather than a few hundred getting millions while several thousand received zero. Attorney Erick G. Kaardal is representing approximately 7,500 Mdewakanton Dakota plaintiffs who initiated the lawsuit. The response brief is due on or about May 20, 2008. The hearing will be held in the summer or fall. More information about the case is available at mklaw.com. |
|
|
Attorney Visits Native American Sweat Lodge |
|
On April 4, 2008, attorney Erick Kaardal participated in a sweat lodge ceremony at Prairie Island Indian Community. Mr. Kaardal reported, "I have a great respect for the cultural and religious traditions of the Dakota people. I want to thank Chris Leith and Virgil Mountain for having me." The sweat lodge ceremony lasted about one hour and involved about 15 people. After the sweat lodge ceremony, food and conversation were shared. |
|
|
Attorney Erick G. Kaardal to Speak at University of Minnesota on Wolfchild Case |
|
Attorney Erick G. Kaardal will be speaking on April 4, 2008 at the University of Minnesota about the pending case Wolfchild v. United States. The Wolfchild Plaintiffs, who Kaardal represents, have established in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that the United States has mismanaged the trust associated with the lands at Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian Community and Lower Sioux Indian Community. The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. More information is available about the case on this website and at mklaw.com. After his presentation, Kaardal will be joined by elders of the Sioux tribes of Northern Plains region. Kaardal states, "I believe this University of Minnesota conference will be a turning point for the greater Dakota, Lakota and Nakota communities to understand the Wolfchild Plaintiffs' objectives. The Bureau of Indian Affairs must be held to the same rule of law that is applied to every other trustee. The Wolfchild Plaintiffs ask for nothing more, nothing less." |
|
|
Attorneys Discuss Public Interest Litigation at St. Thomas Law School |
|
Attorneys Lee McGrath, Institute for Justice, Teresa Nelson, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, and Erick Kaardal, Mohrman & Kaardal spoke to students at St. Thomas Law School on April 2, 2008 about public interest litigation career opportunities. Attorney Lee McGrath discussed the mission of Institute for Justice, how it works and current litigation Similarly, Attorney Teresa Nelson discussed the mission of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, how it works and current litigation. Attorney Erick Kaardal, an attorney in private practice, discussed the role of the private practitioner and the public interest -- why attorneys need to keep in mind service to others. Then, Kaardal discussed some of the lawsuits highlighted on this website. According to the organizers, the event was successful. |
|
|
State Legislature Files Motion to Dismiss in Per Diem Case |
|
The state legislative defendants in the per diem case filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Citizens for Rule of Law. The state legislative defendants argue that per diem compensation is not "compensation" for the purposes of the Minnesota Constitution. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled in Ramsey County District Court on April 28, 2008. |
|
|
Letter to the People Who Reside In Houston County |
|
I am an attorney who lives in Hamel, Minnesota. Some of my acquaintances in Houston County asked me to review recent Houston County Board and Planning Commission actions and give my advice from a neopopulist perspective to the residents of Houston County. Particularly, my acquaintances were concerned about the county government’s handling of the Caledonia jail project, the proposed adoption of countywide land use management policies and certain, recent land use enforcement decisions. After some neopopulist reflection, I do not believe the residents of Houston County have a government that is ethical or democratic. From the neopopulist perspective, the evidence shows that the Houston County government no longer serves the residents of Houston County. First, it is important to reject a right-wing or left-wing ideological interpretation of the Houston County government’s activities. Any ideological and partisan reductionism tends to deviate from the facts and tends to lead the people astray. Second, neopopulists believe that ethical, democratic Houston County government requires a "love of the people." Love of the people is not a utilitarian exercise. A government that loves the people requires a hate of democratic deficits and government mediocrity, requires jealousy to protect the legislative/administrative power from the elitist/expert class and requires a suspicious view of the utilitarian claims inherent in community planning. Neopopulists assert that any government that does not meet these requirements needs to be more ethical and more democratic. Third, neopopulists hate democratic deficits and government mediocrity. Neopopulists believe, like J.S. Mill, that a "skilled democracy" requires a balance between the bureaucratic and democratic elements. Bureaucracies tend toward rules, routine and mediocrity over time. Electing county officials to run county bureaucracies infuses the people's values back into these mediocrity-trending county bureaucracies. Therefore, neopopulists want democratic deficits minimized in Houston County government and available means of political participation in Houston County government maximized. Neopopulists believe the broader the scope and depth of the democratic deliberation, the less government mediocrity. On this point, it is clear that the Houston County commissioners are not committed to an ethical, democratic dialogue with the people. The Houston County commissioners look at the public, public hearings and public input as bothersome, useless and a waste of time. To the contrary, neopopulists view an ethical, democratic environment as an end in itself. In this way, the Houston County government fails to be ethical and democratic. Fourth, neopopulists jealously protect the legislative/administrative power from the elitist/expert class. Neopopulists believe the great battle today is the people's democracy versus the elites and experts of the modern regulatory state. Thus, neopopulists criticize Houston County’s delegation of the legislative power to the county staff which in turn delegates the legislative power to consultants. For example, the proposed countywide land use management system is an unacceptable delegation of legislative/administrative power to the elitist/expert class. These proposals did not come from the people and do not address the people’s needs. The elites and experts, the consultants working with the county staff, have drafted them and proposed them. The people who have to live under these eventual countywide land use management system rules may only comment. The way Houston County has handled this matter rises to the level of a neopopulist scandal. Fifth, neopopulists have a suspicious view of the utilitarian claims inherent in community planning such as the countywide land use management system. The people do not adopt the utilitarian approach that grows out of the economic writings of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham. The marketplace analogy simply does not apply to politics. There is no "marketplace of ideas." Rather, the people insist on an ethical, democratic government to deliberate on community planning. The school of utilitarianism provides little guidance on community planning. The school of neopopulism insists on a democratic process -- an end in itself -- for community planning. The Houston County government has failed to provide such an ethical and democratic process in its consideration of the countywide land use management system. Sixth, neopopulists demand a respect for the rule of law. In Houston County, several hundred people have signed a resolution requesting the County Board to adhere to the rule of law. The County Board has refused to adopt the resolution. Further, recent land use decisions made by the County Board and Planning Commission suggest a reckless attitude towards the rule of law. Neopopulists disagree with the County government’s recklessness towards the rule of law and demand strict adherence to the rule of law -- so that all will be treated equally under the law. In my opinion, the residents of Houston County must act in the November 2008 elections to make its government ethical and democratic by electing neopopulists. The whole world is watching you. Erick G. Kaardal is general counsel for neopopulism.org. |
|
|
First Amendment Case Against OAH Proceeds |
|
On March 27, 2008, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel granted Plaintiffs' motion to add additional parties and class action claims to their complaint. However, Judge Noel recommended to U.S. District Court Judge Rosenbaum that the claims against Robbinsdale Superintendent Stan Mack be dismissed. If Superintendent Mack is dismissed, the state Office of Administrative Hearings remains a defendant. The Plaintiffs will be objecting to Judge Noel's recommendation that Superintendent Mack be dismissed. As background, the Plaintiffs brought their First Amendment claims against the state Office of Administrative Hearings for enforcing penalties against non-defamatory political speech. Any citizen can file a complaint with the OAH asking for penalties to be applied to non-defamatory speech. Plaintiffs assert these penalties and processes violate the people's free speech rights. |
|
|
Minneapolis School District Considers Anti-Bullying Law |
|
The Minneapolis School Board is considering a new anti-bully policy. The hearing was controversial. For more information, check here for the Minnesota Post article and video. |
|
|
Minneapolis Noise Ordinance Struck Down |
|
Minneapolis has acted unconstitutionally regarding citizen noise. First, Hennepin County District Court recently struck down a Minneapolis noise ordinance as being unconstitutionally vague. The 1985 ordinance that was overturned state that noise emanating from a bar shouldn't disturb the "peace and quiet of nearby residents." In March, Trocadeos night club sued the City of Minneapolis after receiving five noise ordinance violations in 2006. Nine months later, the court ruled the Minneapolis ordinance was unconstitutional because police could subjectively guage noise levels, possibly leading to inconsistent results. According to the Minnesota Daily account, Assistant City Attorney Joel Fussy stated that the state noise control criminal statute still applies. Its more stringent standards require a trained measurer of noise, use of a device to measure decibels and at least two measurements thirty minutes apart. Fussy suggested it was hard to meet the more stringent state requirements, "We're having a hard time getting police officers to enforce (the state ordinance)... It's somewhat understandable that a cop may not want to stand in the same place for half an hour to mesure for a noise complaint." Readers should recall that these are criminal statutes over and on top of civil nuisance actions which any citizen can file. |
|
|
Ron Johnson Files Petition in Supreme Court |
|
Shorewood citizen Ron Johnson continues his lawsuit today by filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Minnesota Supreme Court. Johnson argues the Minnesota Supreme Court should take the case for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeals denied a motion to take public notice of U.S. Corps of Engineers' correspondence dated March 8, 2007 -- months after the district court had entered judgment. Because Johnson's case involved a prior misrepresentation of a Corps' determination of a pre-taking Clean Water Act, the Court of Appeal's denial led to a violation of due process. Second, Johnson's constitutional rights were violated when he was awarded ZERO compensation for the previously-adjudicated permanent, physical taking of his land. Third, Shorewood's construction in 2000 of a bicycle and walking trail along Vine Hill Road (never completed) constituted a separate compensable taking -- not compensated. The Minnesota Supreme Court will be reviewing and denying or granting it in the next few weeks. |
|
|
