Legalectric

Late last month, the Red Wing School District canceled a Black History Month appearance by Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison:

Red Wing schools event featuring Keith Ellison cancelled due to concerns over ‘significant disruption’

That seemed a bit odd to me, stating “concerns over significant disruption,” but not really surprising as there was such an overtly racist concerted effort to generate uproar in early 2020 over “refugee resettlement,” which was really a non-issue here in Goodhue County, but the furor raised was INTENSE. The generation of concerns of “significant disruption,” and seeing the baseless presumptions on “our” Red Wing Convo page, it was something that needed a look-see, so I fired off a Data Practices Act Request to the school district. Remember, folks, you too can do this, it’s easy, and rewarding!! All responses are linked at the end of this post.

If I ruled the world… After reviewing what emails came in, the cancellation looks like “obeying in advance,” caving to ugly sentiments and name calling. Rather than cancel A.G. Ellison, “cancel culture, anyone,” I’d publish the emails to hold writers accountable for their actions. To cancel does give the message that this behavior is not only acceptable, but encourages it. There are no consequences to the writers. The District should look at the “values” expressed in these emails, and publicly state and demonstrate that these are not the values to be passed on to the next generation. There have been reports of racist behavior in the schools, from “fighting words” to literal fights, and racism is not inherent. It’s learned behavior. The District needs to address not just the specific actions, but the origins.

I’ve long thought that the racist and xenophobic beliefs held in this area go back to the strong presence of the Ku Klux Klan and America First, where Red Wing was regarded as a KKK stronghold (the links in that sentence are to some of my research, also forwarded to the Goodhue Co. Historical Society, which has a file on the KKK). That strong hold lingers today. We now have a State Rep and Senator espousing America First. What are we doing about it?

What I received was enlightening — so far 18 bundles of joy, with the emails ostensibly triggering the cancellation included — and there really weren’t many. Before the event was announced by the school Principal in the District’s School/Messenger service on February 21, at 5:01 p.m., there were NINE emails objecting… how did that happen? After that announcement, there were just a couple. What’s significant here is that the emails objecting began the day BEFORE the event announcement was sent out, and because four of the 10 objections (including 2 School Board members) were from outside the District, it’s a coordinated effort.

On to the emails

The first email of objection was sent by School Board Member Rachel Marshall Schoenfelder, the same Rachel Marshall Schoenfelder who is now on probation after pleading guilty to theft. Per another article, October 11, 2024 about her theft:

Here’s what she said, and remember, this was before the Principal’s announcement:

“… highly political, controversial, and divisive…” Does Schoenfelder recognize that he’s the duly elected Attorney General of the State of Minnesota? She may not have liked the election result, but…

Less than half an hour later, emails of people objection to A.G. Ellison’s appearance started to appear, again, before the announcement. This from Reed Boelman, the first of three to the high school principal:

And just after that, to the District Superintendent:

“indoctrination” and “here to push an agenda” and “… told by the school board that this is a bad idea.” Let’s see… it was not a School Board decision or initiative, the “Board” did no telling. It was set up by the High School principal, who had not yet announced it. Apparently Boelman received an email that not only informed him of A.G. Ellison’s appearance, but he “was also told that you were told by the school board that this is a bad idea.” Where are these statements pointing?? Rachel Marshall Schoenfelder, the first objector, remains a member of the School Board, but she does not speak for the School Board.

Next was this email objecting, again, sent before Principal’s announcement:

Also before the Principal’s announcement, an email from Lynne Torgerson, a Minneapolis based attorney who ran for 5th CD in 2010, and who was one of several Republican candidates who ran to challenge A.G. Ellison in the 2022 election (the others were Doug Wardlow who was General Council for My Pillow!, Dennis Smith, Jim Schultz, and Tad Jude.). Torgerson withdrew at the convention (A Legalectric post with some details). Here’s the email Torgerson sent:

Antifa? The non-existent entity, and as if being anti-fascist is a bad thing? “Sued business owners for simply working during the COVID lockdowns” ??? Those and other hackneyed talking points… and does she live in Red Wing, no longer in the Metro?

And the next one, also February 20th, before the Principal’s announcement, the most bizarre of the bunch:

Speaking of needing psych help…

Those are the emails received on February 20, before the Principals announcement. And now on to those received the following day, February 21, also before the Principal’s 5:01 p.m. announcement:

The first, from a Pine Island resident, one who testifies often before the legislature and who writes many Letters to the Editor:

“School is a place to learn, grow, and think critically.” Yup…

And also before the Principal’s announcement, another school board member weighs in, passively objecting:

“both sides” ?? “Our focus should be education and not social justice issues.” Oh? Not linked?

And then an email from the Treasurer of the Fillmore County GOP:

“… this person’s hateful words.” “You will be no better than the Hamas terrorists.” Ummmm…

Chronologically, here’s the next email, the Principal’s announcement, sent via the District’s “School/Messenger service: at 5:01 p.m.

After this was sent out on January 21 at 5:01pm, there were two objecting emails, both from Red Wing, I believe parents of students in the district:

And this:

I wonder what their kids think of these emails? Are these examples of the “family values” being passed on?

A.G. Ellison’s appearance was cancelled, and the Principal sent out this notice:

And this paragraph deserves emphasis:

I hope the school is taking the trail back to find the source of the spread to “places that would highly disagree with our guest speaker…” and there’s an obvious place to start!

Here are the post-cancellation emails received:

ALL RESPONSES TO DATA PRACTICES REQUEST – UNEDITED

Trump acted like a bully and What Trump has done is remarkable – in a bad way

Trump administration is where ‘empathy goes to die’

Who will be left to speak for you?

Trump’s gangster-style diplomacy

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…

There was also an issue in the Freeborn County Wind transmission docket, where ALJ Mortenson resisted swearing in my client group members on oath, those many folks in red, and others as well. I’d reported on this at the time:

Before that Freeborn hearing started, I’d approached the ALJ and requested that he swear people on oath or affirm, and he said something to the order of “Oh, I remember you” as I’d requested that before.  He didn’t want to put people under oath.  I reiterated that I’d been present, twice, at Commission meetings where Commissioners asked if specific testimony had been provided under oath, and that where testimony was not under oath, they gave it less weight, as allowed by the rules. Those rules do provide for testimony under oath as an option, so I wanted to assure that’s not an issue.  The ALJ was not happy, but essentially agreed to swear people in if so requested.  AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

The rules? Minnesota Rules include swearing in as a duty of the ALJ:

1400.5500 DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.

Consistent with law, the judge shall perform the following duties:

…  F. administer oaths and affirmations;

That’s a “shall.”

Minnesota Rules have many provisions regarding being sworn in, and the necessity of testimony under oath for consideration regarding “a fact at issue” in a contested case hearing:

All evidentiary testimony presented to prove or disprove a fact at issue shall be under oath or affirmation.

Minn. R. 1400.7800(g).  That’s another “shall.”  Here are a few more citations regarding witnesses, oath/affirmation, and facts:

1400.7200 WITNESSES.

Any party may be a witness and may present witnesses on the party’s behalf at the hearing. All oral testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation. At the request of a party or upon the judge’s own motion, the judge shall exclude witnesses from the hearing room so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.

1400.7800 CONDUCT OF HEARING, Subp. G.  Any party may be a witness or may present other persons as witnesses at the hearing. All evidentiary testimony presented to prove or disprove a fact at issue shall be under oath or affirmation.

1405.0800 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, Subp. B.  … However, testimony which is offered without benefit of oath or affirmation, or written testimony which is not subject to cross-examination, shall be given such weight as the administrative law judge deems appropriate.

Oath?  Affirmation?  This is not something anyone should have to push about… but we did, and each of those public witnesses made their statements under oath. Every Association of Freeborn County Landowner participant requested to be sworn on oath and was.  And for the record, not one of the Invenergy/Freeborn Wind Project witnesses speaking in support of the project requested to be sworn on oath, not one of them made their statements under oath.

This background is why 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!!

SUCCESS! Here’s the Order for “Complaint #2” about rooftop sign, OAH File 21-0325-40437:

Here’s a snippet, and that first sentence says it all:

There’s been this bru-ha-ha in Red Wing. Our Attorney General Keith Ellison was to come down and speak at the high school at the end of Black History Month. Then it was suddenly canceled:

“… concerns over significant disruption.” Shades of the refugee resettlement furor. So I fired off a Data Practices Act Request, and the responses have begun to come in.

One email is particularly interesting, well, several of them are INTERESTING, and one of those is from Lynne Torgerson:

Antifa? On one hand, is there something wrong with being ANTI-FASCIST? But on the other hand, “Antifa?” Really?

Well, well, well… here in RED WING?!?! And googling her name, damned if one of the first on the list isn’t a Legalectric post!

Lynne Torgerson for AG? AAAACK! March 28th, 2022

Torgerson is a Metro attorney who tried to run against Keith Ellison in 2022, but she withdrew at the Republican convention:

Jim Schultz won the Republican nomination but lost the election. Doug Wardlow, f/k/a the My Pillow attorney, also ran but lost in the primary. Anyway, maybe Lynne Torgerson has a beef with Ellison?!?!

It’s interesting her claim that she lives in Red Wing. Whitepages does show Red Wing as a past address, but the SoS Voter File I have shows 9 Torgerson’s in Lake City, Wabasha, and Minneiska, with one in Red Wing, and that one for sure is NOT Lynne!

On the other hand, 1106 26th Ave NE, Minneapolis sold on August 30, 2024, it’s not owned by Torgerson now, and the prior sale was 2007, a probate deed. It was on the market pretty much continually from 2020 until 2024.

Who knows where she may be now? Could she have drifted down the river and ended up with or near the Torgerson here? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anyway, she has a very detailed Minnesota Supreme Court disciplinary opinion in 2015 that makes for very interesting reading:

IN RE: Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Lynne A. TORGERSON

The first two paragraphs of that opinion:

There are other emails that were sent to the Red Wing School District, and I’m wading through them. You’ll see more about them soon.

From 2012, in Esquire: