Here’s the Complaint filed by Roy Moore, looking for a Temporary Restraining Order, a Preliminary Injunction, and a new election:


Here’s his first demand:

How’s that workin’ for ya, Roy?  The Alabama Secretary of State has certified the election results, and you are the loser:

2017 Official General Election Results (Write-In Appendix)

2017 Official General Election Results (No Appendix)

And this, as part of the Complaint, good grief, stupid is as stupid does… this guy might as well go be a dishwasher at the local greasy spoon:

Well, at least Moore is consistent in his riding “style.”  Looks like he’s ready for a Lazy-Roy saddle.




EV Charging Station at Duluth’s Rail Museum Parking Lot

There’s been some discussion here in Red Wing and Goodhue Cunty about the city installing infrastructure for charging electric vehicles.  There’s a charger at the Kwik Trip on the west side of town, but I think that’s a slow charger, a regular outlet that would take forever to amount to anything.  The Red Wing City Council voted to approve a charging station in the LaGrange parking ramp, and to request a grant to cover part of the cost, estimated at about $10,000 (!!).

In the meantime, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has opened a docket looking into a few policy issues about electric charging:

In mid-March there will be a public workshop hosted by the PUC, and then there will be a comment period on these topics, and more:

This ties into what Red Wing and Goodhue County are looking into and could affect that.

Interested in receiving notices and participating in the workshop and discussion?  Contact:

Hanna Terwilliger:  or  (651) 201-2243

Kelly Martone:  or  (651) 201-2245

If Evanston, WY, in the midst of gas/oil country can do it…

Whew! Another federal judge comes down on the tRump Travel Ban, and grants a narrow injunction.  Read it here:

17-17168_9th Circuit Hawaii_Travel Ban 3.0


Yup, there’s the Red Wing City Council.  At the December 11, 2017 meeting, as part of “Other Council Concerns” they discussed sending it to the Human Rights Commission, a good thing, but it was not on the agenda, which it should have been.  No notice that this was coming up.  It’s in the “Administrator’s Report” item 11 on City Council agenda (click for larger version):

So it’s on the Agenda for Human Rights Commission, but it’s item 11b, WITH NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE ORDINANCE AT ISSUE!  How is anyone to know?

20171221 – Agenda_RW-HRC

On September 18, 2017, the City of Rochester passed a similar ordinance, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, where there’s no discussion.  WHAT?!?!?

Pages from 2017-09-18 City Council – Full Agenda-2647_Rochester_D-6

I’m looking for the video to see how that went down.  It was on initiative of the City Attorney there, see agenda item D-6 from Council Packet above.  Pulled from Consent Agenda:

35. Ordinance Prohibiting Disturbance of Assembly or Meeting

Item D.6 was pulled to allow for discussion.

Councilmember Wojcik commented on his concerns with the vagueness of the
proposed language.

President Staver commented.

City Attorney Terry Adkins provided background information on this issue,

Councilmember Hickey commented in support of the proposed language being

Councilmember Campion commented, noting it appears from reading the ACLU’s
brief on this issue that they are in support of this sort of action.

Approved directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and give it its first
reading this evening under H.1.

And under H.1:

H.1. H1 – First Reading:
An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Section 85.065 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances, Relating to Disturbing an Assembly or Meeting was given a first

Then, on October 16th:

And the Council Packet for this item:

Really!  Nothing at all…

Here’s the video: At 1:26:45 – 1:27:14, LESS THAN 30 SECONDS, NO DISCUSSION

So tell me, what exactly did they pass?  My guess is that they passed it as introduced, but…

On Tuesday, Commerce is having a wind project transmission scoping meeting (MPUC Docket 17-322):

6 p.m. on December 19, 2017

Room 124

 Riverland Community College

Albert Lea, MN

The Albert Lea Tribune printed my Letter to the Editor about the Freeborn Wind Farm transmission scoping meeting:

Letter: Meeting on new wind farm is planned next week

At 6 p.m. Dec. 19 in Room 124 at Riverland Community College, the Minnesota Department of Commerce is holding a public comment and scoping meeting for the transmission line designed to serve the Freeborn Wind project. This is the opportunity for you to raise any questions and concerns about what issues should be investigated and reviewed in the Department of Commerce’s environmental review. This includes all of the things you know about the area, and any alternatives that should be in the mix.

Minnesota has a policy of non-proliferation of transmission corridors, which means that as a matter of law, transmission should be routed using existing corridors, such as transmission lines already in place or road right of way.  This line, instead, is proposed to traverse cross country.  That’s not non-proliferation.

Another problem is that Freeborn Wind developers claim they have land rights to all land needed for this transmission line, and then state that they’ll use eminent domain if they don’t. Well, which is it? And it’s troubling, because only public service corporations have the power of eminent domain, but Freeborn is a LLC, not a public service corporation. To make things more complicated, need has not been demonstrated, and there is no certificate of need. Need is a requirement for use of eminent domain. What’s their basis for saying they can use eminent domain?

This is yet another overreach by the developers — more infrastructure, which would forever change the landscape of this community.  Dec. 19 at Riverland College — now is the time to speak up!

Carol A. Overland

Attorney for Association of Freeborn County Landowners