Legalectric

And this is another aspect of the Chisago case that has me fuming!  There’s yet another twist in the Chisago proceeding is the harassment of my former client, Concerned River Valley Citizens (CRVC).  I’m glad I’m a step removed, because this is such flagrant _________ (your favorite invective here).

Earlier this month, CRVC’s Motion for Extension of Task Force was “taken under advisement,” and they received the most bizarre Order from the ALJ, directing them to respond to specific questions of the ALJ set out in Order point 3:

    3.    On or before 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, a representative of the Concerned River Valley Citizens shall file responsive papers addressing the following matters:

a.    Whether either Mr. Neuman or Ms. Johnson is licensed to practice law in Minnesota or any other jurisdiction;

b.    Whether, in the view of the association, representation of Concerned River Valley Citizens by a non-attorney would amount to the unauthorized practice of law, as those terms are used in Rule 1400.5800;

c.    Whether, in the view of the association, retaining the services of a licensed attorney to appear on behalf of Concerned River Valley Citizens would be unduly burdensome;

d.    Whether the Concerned River Valley Citizens, if granted intervention as a party, would seek access to confidential trade secret data; and,

e.    Whether a more limited role than intervention, under Rule 1400.7150, might meet the needs of Concerned River Valley Citizens.

Seems to me that this is express notice to CRVC that they are being offered the “choice” of caving and relinquishing meaningful participation, or they’ll get only a “limited role.”  Good thing I’m not representing them, because MY response would not be printable in this “family blog.”

Here’s the full Order:

ALJ Harrassment and Quashing of CRVC

Bill Neuman has taken the lead in CRVC’s Intervention, since they “passed me off” to the City, and he submitted the following responses to the ALJ:

II. CRVC POSITION ON ISSUES

A. Whether either Mr. Neuman or Ms. Johnson is licensed to practice law in Minnesota or any other jurisdiction.

CRVC objects to this question as it infers a requirement that it be represented by a licensed attorney.  Maintaining that objection, neither Mr. Neuman nor Ms. Johnson are  attorneys licensed to practice law in Minnesota or any other jurisdiction. There is no authority in rule or statute to support the notion that licensure is required for an individual to represent themselves or a non-profit organization of which they are an officer. Further, the statutory and regulatory policy of encouraging public participation requires that parties be afforded the opportunity to represent their interests.

B. Whether, in the view of the association, representation of Concerned River Valley Citizens by a non-attorney would amount to the unauthorized practice of law, as   those terms are used in Rule 1400.5800.

CRVC objects to this question, as it, again, infers a requirement that CRVC be represented by a licensed attorney. While maintaining that objection, representation of CRVC by a non-attorney does not amount to unauthorized practice. Rule 1400.5800 does not offer guidance as to the definition of “unauthorized practice,” which is correctly found in Minn. Stat. §481.02. CRVC notes that this statute draws a distinction between those corporations organized for pecuniary profit, and non-profits such as CRVC. Minn. Stat. §481.02, Subd. 2. The statute also specifies legal representation in “court” and does not address administrative proceedings. Parties may draw and submit documents without charge where they are officers of a corporation, as Ms. Johnson and Mr. Neuman are with CRVC. Neither Johnson nor Neuman are receiving payment for their work on this issue. Minn. Stat. §481.02, Subd. 3. Minn. Stat. §481.02, Subd. 1,Subd. 5. Further, it has long been agency practice that individuals and officers of non-profit corporations represent themselves before the Commission and the Environmental Quality Board, and before ALJs of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Departure from this practice would be a change of great magnitude and impact and would greatly limit the ability of the public to participate in dockets that have a direct impact on
their lives and property.

Again, there is no authority in rule or statute to support the notion that licensure is required for an individual to represent themselves or a non-profit organization of which they are an officer. Further, the statutory and regulatory policy of encouraging public participation requires that parties be afforded the opportunity to represent their interests.

C. Whether, in the view of the association, retaining the services of a licensed attorney to appear on behalf of Concerned River Valley Citizens would be unduly burdensome.

CRVC objects to this question as it again infers a requirement that CRVC be represented by a licensed attorney and that an Order to that effect is contemplated. Maintaining that objection, CRVC states that retaining the services of a licensed attorney to appear on behalf of Concerned River Valley Citizens would be unduly burdensome, utterly unnecessary, and that any Order that CRVC must retain an attorney would be unreasonable. It should be noted that Minnesota does not offer Intervenor Compensation.

D. Whether the Concerned River Valley Citizens, if granted intervention as a party, would seek access to confidential trade secret data.

CRVC objects to this question because whether a potential party would seek access to confidential trade secret data is not a criteria for granting or denying intervention. Commission and OAH practice has long been to provide Intervenors with confidential trade secret data under a protective order, whether utility or non-profit intervenors. These agreements are routine. CRVC would obviously be bound by a confidentiality agreement. Further, there does not seem to be any confidential trade secret.

E. Whether a more limited role than intervention, under Rule 1400.7150, might meet the needs of Concerned River Valley Citizens.

CRVC objects to this question as it implies granting a limited intervention only, contrary to the policy goals of encouragement of public participation. Further, provisions of Rule 1400.7150 do not convey a right of participation. CRVC requires intervention with full-party status, as has been granted previously, because of the depth and breadth of issues raised, and that no other party adequately represents these interests. 

I guess CRVC told the ALJ, huh!!!

The ALJ’s Order is unprecedented harassment of Intervenors and is an extreme example of the many attacks against public participation, the basic due process rights of people affected by all these infrastructure proposals.  HOW DARE THEY!!!!