Motion for Certification of W.O.L.F. Intervention
January 27th, 2024
Here we go for another round — a Motion for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/… Any party may request that a pending motion or a motion decided adversely to that party by the judge before or during the course of the hearing, other than rulings on the admissibility of evidence or interpretations of parts 1400.5100 to 1400.8400, be certified by the judge to the agency…
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/1400.7600/
We’re asking that the Public Utilities Commission take up the matter of World Organization for Landowner Freedom’s Intervention:
Included after the Motion, but here separately:
It’s just so offensive. This matter matters (!), and W.O.L.F. is the only one in there objecting and requesting Intervention. Why this Motion? Why ask for Certification to the Public Utilities Commission to consider and decide? Well, in a nutshell:
Why?? Because of the ALJ’s denial of W.O.L.F.’s intervention based on a false statement regarding W.O.L.F.’s “only” contribution, and conflation of two different conditions in the original Arrowhead-Weston Transmission Line Exemption Order, that of the noise condition and the necessity of noise reduction measures to comply with Minnesota’s noise standard (Minn. R. 7030.0040) with an 800 MVA transformer limitation of capacity to assure the line isn’t for bulk power transfer! I have an urge to do a Data Practices Act Request and have the EQB’s Arrowhead Transmission Project record sent to his office!
This same Administrative Law Judge threatened the “Union Intervenors” with unauthorized practice of law… veiled threat? No, it’s overt. He had to take the action of looking beyond the OAH Rules to find Minn. Stat. § 481.02 and Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 3(5) (2022), and to say:
In short, while the Judge does not intend to manage the practice of law in this matter, parties should be aware that potential issues could arise for non-lawyers who are not statutorily exempted from the general prohibition of non-lawyer practice of law in Minn. Stat. § 481.02. The Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board may be a resource for more information on this topic.
Really, that’s a quote — and no, it’s not a “helpful cautionary warning” — check this footnote:
OH. MY. DOG! That’s just too bizarre.
- Looking up a name on MARS attorney registration site takes a matter of seconds — “does not know” when it’s that easy to find out? Give me a break…
- But that’s not an issue. Runke and Kolodzieski have not held themselves out as attorneys, to my knowledge.
- But more importantly, non-attorneys are welcome to practice in hearings before Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). See the Power Plant Siting Act rules, Minn. R. 1405.0600, and also Minn. R. 1400.5800. This is something a Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings frequently presiding over utility dockets should know. There’s no excuse for threats like that, bandying about “unauthorized practice law.” This is not “court” and the OAH rules expressly provide for non-attorney representation.
I’ve run short of printable words, though I did quick hammer out this objection, and copied the Chief Judge:
This is all so contrary to the Public Utilities Commission’s charge to encourage public participation:
216E.08 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
Subd. 2. Other public participation.
The commission shall adopt broad spectrum citizen participation as a principal of operation. The form of public participation shall not be limited to public hearings and advisory task forces and shall be consistent with the commission’s rules and guidelines as provided for in section 216E.16.
Leave a Reply