|
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. |
|
|
Orono School District Press Release |
|
PRESS RELEASE March 11, 2008 JUDGE DISMISSES ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT LAWSUIT ON SERVICE TECHNICALITY; CITIZENS VOLUNTARILY DROP LAWSUITS, BUT VOW TO FIGHT ON AS TO “MAILED BALLOT” ISSUE Hennepin County District Court Judge Tony N. Leung dismissed Bruce Malby’s and Sherokee Ilse’s election contest against the Orono School District to overturn a $39,350,000 bond and property tax increase referendum passed on February 12, 2008. Judge Leung’s decision was based on a technicality regarding direct delivery of the election contest complaint to the Clerk of the School District. As to this technicality, Judge Leung wrote that “Contestants ‘contacted the Orono School District, found the Clerk of the School District unavailable, and ascertained [from Assistant Superintendent Neal Lawson] who could instead receive service on her behalf as Clerk of the School District’ and ‘[receptionist] Mrs. [Connie] Jenkins identified herself as the agent of the Clerk, knowing of her absence, and accepted service of process on the Clerk’s behalf.’” Judge Leung found, even under these circumstances, the statutes required direct delivery of the complaint on the Clerk. Judge Leung concluded, “The service and timing requirements for election contests are extremely exacting and unforgiving, more so than almost any other area of the law. In this sense, Contestants can hardly be faulted for proceeding in the manner they did.” Judge Leung’s decision did not address Malby’s and Ilse’s complaint that state statutes required the Orono School District to mail its ballot to all eligible voters prior to the election. Attorney Erick G. Kaardal, “We are disappointed that the Orono School District chose to fight the lawsuit on service technicalities rather than the legality of their referendum. The question remains after Judge Leung’s ruling did the Orono School District act illegally when it chose not to mail the ballots before the February 12, 2008 referendum?” As to further litigation with the Orono School District, Malby and Ilse have agreed with the School District not to appeal and have dropped the second lawsuit. They determined after Judge Leung’s ruling that there are better ways to push the “mailed ballot” issue than after-the-fact in an election contest. Attorney Erick G. Kaardal agrees, “Malby and Ilse have discovered an issue of statewide importance: school districts statewide are required by statute to mail ballots for non-November referenda that raise revenue for the school district. We will be bringing this matter to the Department of Education and/or facilitating lawsuits in other school districts brought prior to their referenda. My clients concluded that the remedy of ‘mailed ballots’ is better pursued prior to the election than after the election – when the School District will likely misrepresent the efforts for ‘mailed ballots’ as ‘sour grapes.’” Contestant Sherokee Ilse responded, “As an educator myself, I understand there is a need for some fiscally responsible referenda to help our students and schools. However, that is not what this lawsuit was about. It challenged an election that did not follow the election laws, because it was held in February (and not by mail) when many people were out of town. The intent of this law is to give all taxpayers a chance to vote – either during a regular November election or by being mailed a ballot if the district seeks to hold the election any other time of the year. Elections are the bedrock of our country and our republic. We need to be able to trust the election process and their results – win or lose – therefore, they must be done correctly according to the law.” Contestant Bruce Malby added, “I want to apologize to the elderly taxpayers in Orono, members of the ‘greatest generation,' who were disenfranchised by the school district’s failure to mail the ballots prior to the election. I have heard there were people who didn’t even know there was a vote. We failed to protect them.” For more information, contact Erick G. Kaardal at 612-341-1074. |
|
|
State Legislators and Constitutional Coverup |
|
PRESS RELEASE March 7, 2008 CONSTITUTIONAL COVER UP IN H.F. 3796! STATE HOUSE REFERS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE TO ASK VOTERS TO RATIFY LEGISLATOR ABUSE OF EXPENSE ACCOUNTS Erick G. Kaardal, representing the citizen-plaintiffs in the Per Diem litigation against the state legislature announces a Constitutional Coverup in House File 3796 (attached) to be heard by the Minnesota House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee today. At the time of this press release, Mr. Kaardal is unsure of the time of the hearing. On March 4, 2008, the Minnesota House of Representatives referred to its Rules and Legislative Administration Committee a proposed constitutional amendment which would strike the constitutional ban on increases of compensation taking effect prior to the next election of state representatives and put compensation decisions in the hands of a statewide council – not the state legislature. Mr. Kaardal states, “The state legislators refuse to acknowledge their illegal abuse of the expense accounts. They have over-compensated themselves in violation of the constitution and statutes. Now, their constitutional amendment asking the people to ratify their illegal abuse of the expense accounts shows they think the people are stupid.” For more information, contact Erick G. Kaardal at 612-341-1074. |
|
|
Wersal Sues in Federal Court on Solicitation Restriction on Judicial Candidates |
|
Neo-populist hero Greg Wersal filed a lawsuit this week in the U.S. District Court challenging solicitation restrictions on Minnesota's judicial candidates. Mr. Wersal is represented by Indiana attorney James Bopp. In 2002, Mr. Wersal successfully won a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging ethical restrictions on speech of Minnesota's judicial candidates. Mohrman & Kaardal represented Mr. Wersal in that case. Mr. Bopp represented the Republican Party of Minnesota. The new lawsuit challenges Minnesota's ban on judicial candidates personally soliciting funds from individuals -- unless the individual is in a group of 20 or more people. For more information on the lawsuit, please read the Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom press release. Judicial Candidate Sues Over 20 Person Solicitation Rule Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Gregory Wersal, who previously won a case in the Supreme Court challenging Minnesota’s restrictions on speech during judicial elections, was back in federal court today challenging a Minnesota rule limiting the ability of judicial candidates to personally solicit campaign funds. In 2004, Minnesota’s judicial canon prohibiting all personal solicitations by a judge or judicial candidate was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals as violating the First Amendment. Minnesota responded by passing a new rule allowing candidates to personally solicit money - but only to groups of 20 or more. Wersal’s suit claims that this new provision limits his ability to raise needed campaign funds, and is unconstitutional for the same reasons as the previous provision. |
|
|
U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Denies Wolfchild Plaintiffs' Motion |
|
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the Wolfchild Plaintiffs' motion to apply judicial estoppel against the United States for egregiously inconsistent argumentation. The Court in a brief two-page order stated that it would be better for the arguments to be considered in the briefs on the merits. The United States' Brief of the Appellant is due on April 11, 2008. The Court's order and more information about the lawsuit can be found here. |
|
|
