Legalectric

UPDATE: Here’s the OAH panel’s decision on Overland v. Gary Iocco for Mayor #3 — DISMISSED:

Aspects of this Order are bizarre. Iocco’s testimony that he’d paid the November 1, 2024 Wylie Wilson Trucking invoice “just before the hearing” in February, over three months overdue, was NOT credible. He offered zero evidence that it’d been paid, in fact he’d offered not a single piece of evidence in this Complaint #3 or Complaint #2 either. He’d not responded to Discovery in either docket, and I should have filed a Motion to Compel, but too much going on, no time.

And regarding ALJ Mortenson? I’ve posted about this before… This is the same Administrative Law Judge threatened the “Union Intervenors” with unauthorized practice of law… veiled threat? No, it was overt. He had to take the action of looking beyond the simple and very clear OAH Rules to find Minn. Stat. § 481.02 and Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 3(5) (2022) that clearly allow non-attorneys to practice, and he said citing an inapplicable statute considering the Office of Administrative Hearings rules:

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.

Order_Granting-Union-Intervention_20241-202712-01 Download

Really, that’s a quote from his order — and no, it’s not a “helpful cautionary warning” — check this footnote, the full text from that Order:

Hard to imagine how the rules could be more clear:

So based on that bizarre statement, which is contrary to the OAH rules, I filed this and copied the OAH Chief Judge:

I’m sure that went over well, but threats like that should not slide by…

Yes, I chose to challenge the ALJ. If I had misinterpreted that “question,” that would have been said that day on the record, the “other” case would have been cited, and I would have been in deep doo-doo. It was not. BUT, I’ll have to listen to the tape. I do note though that instead of going forward with the statement before the break that I’d threatened the judge and violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility, it became a matter of whether my comments were a Motion to Recuse, a 180 turn-around. That limbo is not a comfortable place to be, but given past experience, I took that risk.

This Complaint #3 was dismissed. Note that this Complaint was not deemed frivolous, and that most importantly, there were no sanctions.

Win some, lose some.

I hope future candidates will pay attention and follow the law!!