Robocalls gone rogue
January 11th, 2016
Delaware robocall bomb threats:
And in Iowa, on the political side of thing, racist robocalls:
From Alternet, here’s a transcript of the 50-second call:
“The American National Super PAC makes this call to support Donald Trump.
The Bundy Brigade and the Constitution
January 11th, 2016
Can we scrounge up some legal counsel for the Bundy Brigade? Throughout this Bundy occupation in Oregon, they’re railing about the Constitution, that it’s against the Constitution for the federal government to own land. In defense of this position, they’re citing “Article 1, Section 8, clause 17.”
Just google “Bundy” and “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17” for examples of this reliance.
Here’s a cut and past of Article 1, Section 8:
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —And
Ummmmmm, where do they get these ideas?
How do they square that with Article IV, Section 3 (in red below):
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
And to add a little levity — but as smh inducing — their updated wishlist. Can someone explain why they’d need “ice chests?” It’s winter…
Rate Case – Response filed to Xcel’s Objection to Intervention
January 6th, 2016
Shame, Xcel Energy. Your basis for objecting to the Petition for Intervention of No CapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland is just not holding up when looking at other interventions, and noting that in your Xcel-existence, in all your rate cases, you’ve only objected to one potential intervenor. So take that, Xcel:
Here’s Xcel’s Objection:
And here’s the original Petition for Intervention:
NoCapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland_Intervention Petition Packet
Xcel objects to No CapX and Overland intervention
January 5th, 2016
Yesterday at the Xcel Energy rate case prehearing conference, Xcel’s attorney, Eric Swanson, stated that they’d be objecting to the No CapX 2020/Overland intervention. Just after that prehearing conference ended, their objection was filed:
Good idea, Xcel….
What do other Petitions for Intervention look like? What other Objections has Xcel made to Interventions? What do Petitions for Interventions that have been granted by an ALJ look like? Let’s compare…
Recently, Xcel Energy’s Chris Clark, who I’d been working in tandem with years ago when he was just lowly corporate counsel cohort opposing the legislatively mandated Power Purchase Agreement for the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project said, “I just don’t understand why the transmission side hates you so!” (rough, not exact quote).
Well, Chris, I guess you’re gonna find out.
I presume that this is just a way to eliminate anyone that they haven’t bought off in the course of that “e21 Initiative” where they “reached consensus” about wanting a business-plan based multi-year rate plan — many of the usual suspects were NOT present at that Prehearing Conference and there’d only been two Interventions filed prior to the Prehearing Conference, and only one filed since.
Yeah, great idea. I testified against that effort at both Senate and House committees, where the room was backed full of those who’d “reached consensus” and they were all S-I-L-E-N-T as Sen. Marty and Rep. Garofalo ushered that bill through. SHAME! Will they show up for the rate case, and what position might the take? Certainly not anything challenging the “Multi-Year Rate Plan.”
There was an interesting twist too. I’d brought up that under Minn. Stat. 10A.01, Subd. 2, participation on a rate case is deemed lobbying, and requires registration and reporting when/if the thresholds are met, and requested that this requirement be addressed in the Prehearing Order. The ALJ clearly knew nothing about it.
Minn. Stat. 10A.01, Subd. 2. Administrative action.
“Administrative action” means an action by any official, board, commission or agency of the executive branch to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule under chapter 14. “Administrative action” does not include the application or administration of an adopted rule, except in cases of rate setting, power plant and powerline siting, and granting of certificates of need under section 216B.243.
I’d noted in the discussion that the lobbying statute is typically noted in the Commission’s referral to OAH, and thankfully, on the record, I’d thought to look at that Order, and there it was, p. 7:
And I noticed that Eric Swanson was very, very quiet during that discussion. HE is the one who charged me with not registering as lobbyist in the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission Line case, as attorney for Minnesota Power. That was such a low budget virtually pro bono operation that there’s no way either RRANT or I would meet the thresholds for registering or reporting. That gambit of his was just more harassment, trying to limit legitimate critique of their project and process.
So now, for a response to that Objection to Intervention of No CapX 2020 and Overland…
Comparing Bundys v. #blacklivesmatter… are you serious?
January 3rd, 2016
Since the #YallQaeda takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters, I’ve been waiting for the comparisons of these guys to #blacklivesmatter. Here we go, from the bubbleheads:
Let’s see, looking at Bundys v. #blacklivesmatter here in Minneapolis: taking over a federal building v. tenting on the grounds; armed v. unarmed; repudiating governmental authority v. working for systemic change; unfocused blather v. concrete demands and issues; unwanted outsiders v. community members; bringing in snipers v. bringing in tents and food; favored and coddled treatment in the press v. scathing condemnation in the press. DOH! And white male leadership v. black female leadership. And these “111” guys, the Bundy folks have it on their T-Shirts, pick up truck rear windows, and the ones who came in and SHOT #blacklivesmatter protesters were part of the group branding themselves with the “111” label.