The Center of the American Experiment is at it again. Seems they object to being held accountable. Seems that Erin Nystrom, a member of Rochester Golf and Country Club (RGCC), filed a petition with 90? 100? signatures demanding that the RGCC cancel the presentation scheduled by CAE based on divisive results of a prior CAE presentation urging people to flood the next school board meeting objecting to “Critical Race Theory” (despite that the notion that this is school curriculum thoroughly debunked), and responses to other CAE presentations around the state. RGCC Board took up the matter, and it appears that this was more than a day before the presentation (looking for verification). Anyway, CAE objects, claiming “cancel culture” and legally claiming breach of contract. The Amended Complaint is below.

A couple of posts, first from CAE and followed by Med City:

“Activists shut down Rochester law enforcement panel event” (CAE’s video MIA!)

Rochester Golf and Country Club cancels ‘crime crisis’ event after facing backlash

From the Med City post just above:

Prior to the event’s cancellation, Torgerson offered a similar take on why he agreed to participate on the panel. Speaking to KAAL-TV’s Betsy Singer, the sheriff said while he doesn’t believe there is a crime crisis in the area, he did welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues facing law enforcement.

Center of the American Experiment was not happy about this cancellation of their shindig.

Center of the American Experiment, through its attorney, Gregory Joseph (remember the “Recall City Hall” bogus lawsuit, quickly withdrawn?) filed Notice of Motion and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in Olmsted County District Court, and got this result:

Pretty simple, “Denied. Plaintiffs do not have the right to a hearing without proper filing of suit and motions.”

And about 4 hours after this order of DENIAL, Joseph sent this:

Apparently he didn’t get the message, so another judge filed this a couple hours later:

They DID file a Complaint and Memorandum, but not until AFTER the dismissal, and filed this Amended Complaint on Tuesday, April 5, 2022, 3 weeks after their initial filing:

Note that Joseph has changed from his private practice to “Upper Midwest Law Center,” where he is listed now not as “inhouse” but as “outhouse” counsel:

I wonder if Joseph is trying to pick up the Erick Kaardal contingent — that seems to be the Upper Midwest Law Center‘s focus.

Erick Kaaardal has been very active in SE Minnesota and also with “groups” and “organizations” politically and philosophically in line with those of Center of the American Experiment.

Joseph does seem to be following some of Kaardal’s playbook. If so, he perhaps should exercise caution and not follow it too closely?!?! Kaardal is up against sanctions for participating in filing a bogus 2020 election lawsuit. It was the threat of sanctions which lead to Joseph’s withdrawal of the “Recall City Hall” lawsuit. Recall committee drops lawsuit against City Council members and Red Wing recall lawsuit dropped . . . for now.

Here’s some of the scoop on Kaardal, first regarding the judge’s referral for sanctions:

And why referred for sancions? Here’s the original Complaint in that underlying case, and here’s the judge’s Memorandum on Order Denying Injunction, tossing it out.

And local folks here in SE Minnesota, don’t forget that CD1’s former Rep. Jim Hagedorn voted to deny certification of the 2020 election. And don’t forget that “our” SD21’s Rep. Steve Drazkowski and Senator Goggin requested, with other MN legislators, that the Texas A.G. add Minnesota to the bogus Texas lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results, disenfranchising Minnesotans in this free and fair election! Those signing this letter have no business continuing as Minnesota legislators.

Dismissal of that lawsuit (note Thomas’ take on this — hmmmmm, Clarence, Ginni, or both?!?):

Last night’s meeting was disappointing. No action on the Recall legal action. And few showed up. Not what I was expecting!

On the other hand, Mayor Wilson wanted Kent Laugen, who has been actively involved in the Recall effort, to be appointed to the Port Authority. As with his attempted appointment of Janie Farrar, another Recall proponent, that Laugen appointment motion failed for a second.

Here’s the missive I sent to the City Council yesterday:

Overland Comment on Recall Petition to City Council today

And here’s the Petition that was filed on Friday:

Frivolous Recall Lawsuit Filed

In the Rochester Post Bulletin, linked, about the Recall City Hall lawsuit:

Red Wing recall takes next big step with lawsuit

Suit seeks remedy for city council not approving special recall election after group gathered the required signatures.

Written By: Brian Todd | 9:08 am, Aug. 10, 2021

RED WING — Late Friday afternoon, the Recall City Hall committee in Red Wing took the next step in its efforts to bring six members of the city council to a special election.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Red Wing residents George Hintz, Peter Lang, Judith Kjome, Stephen Lind, Betty Kalember and Sheryl Voth, asks the 1st District Court “for correction of a deliberate ballot omission or, alternatively, for a Writ of Mandamus directing the City of Red Wing to hold an election for the recall of six city councilmembers in accordance with the strictures of the municipal charter.”

The petition points to what it calls several undisputed facts. They include that in each ward or wards at least 20 percent of registered voters signed petitions to recall council members Becky Norton, Evan Brown, Erin Buss, Andy Klitzke, Dean Hove and Laurel Stinson. However, the city council voted 6-1 – with all six council members up for recall voting no, and council member Kim Beise voting yes – on multiple occasions not to hold a special election.

In the petition, Greg Joseph, a Waconia, Minn.-based attorney representing the recall group, notes how the Red Wing City Charter states, “the clerical officer shall transmit it to the Council without delay and shall also officially notify the person sought to be recalled of the sufficiency of the petition and of the pending action. The Council shall, at its next meeting, by resolution provide for filing dates and other provisions necessary for the holding of a special recall election not less than 45 nor more than 60 days after such meeting.”

Joseph said it’s that directive to order an election that the city council has rejected, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.

However, not every resident of Red Wing sees it the same way.

Carol Overland, a local attorney who has expressed her support for the city council and its actions, said the public does not have a legal right to a recall election, and a firm case of malfeasance or nonfeasance – the justification for a recall – is absent in the recall effort.

[Original – since corrected: The idea that the petitioners who ran the recall efforts could determine what meets the legal definition of malfeasance or nonfeasance, she said, is absurd.] [Correction, I said “voters” because that’s what they’re arguing, that the voters should decide in an election whether there’s been malfeasance or nonfeasance, so insert “voters” here — it’s fixed now.]

The idea that the voters could determine what meets the legal definition of malfeasance or nonfeasance, she said, is absurd.

Council President Becky Norton agrees.

“The (Red Wing City) Charter and the Minnesota Constitution are clear that elected officials can only be recalled for malfeasance or nonfeasance,” Norton wrote in response to questions from the Post Bulletin. Norton went on to cite a case from 1959, Jacobsen v. Nagel. “The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the same malfeasance and nonfeasance standard that applies to state officials applies to council members of a charter city.”

If the conduct of the council members does not constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance, Norton concluded, there is no obligation to schedule a recall election, which is why the city council was justified in its action.https://www.postbulletin.com/news/government-and-politics/7144940-Red-Wing-recall-takes-next-big-step-with-lawsuit

Kent Laugen, another local attorney not directly connected to the case, said while the lawsuit does not focus on whether the burden of malfeasance or nonfeasance has been reached, there is precedent from the courts saying that decision is left up to the voters.

[Precedent? Show us! It doesn’t exist][“not directly connected to the case” but DIRECTLY connected to the Recall — see quotes in other PB articles]

Whether or not there is a special election, the next election the six council members face is going to be tough, Laugen said.

The court has yet to set a hearing date for the lawsuit.

After wading through the bullshit last night, it feels a lot better this morning in Red Wing. Watch the video, particularly Agenda Items 7, 10C, and 10D:

Red Wing City Council Meeting – June 14, 2021

In order of appearance:

  • Agenda Item 7 – Terri Cook appointed to Charter Commission, no discussion, no muss, no fuss.
  • Agenda Item 10C – Recall – Brown and Buss – once again, no malfeasance or non-feasance. DOH!
  • Agenda Item 10D – Shared space – Mayor Wilson does not have exclusive rights to the shared space at City Hall.

There was a call to SHOW UP and support the Council, that’s the folks in white shirts, who far outnumbered the “RECALL” folks, about the same percentages as in the Presidential votes in our fair city. Overflow crowd.

In the Republican bEagle:

4 things to know about the Red Wing City Council meeting

In the Rochester Post Bulletin:

Recall committee loses another round at Red Wing city council meeting

Recall? (SNORT!) NO! NO! NO!

April 24th, 2021

It’s a RECALL TO NOWHERE!

From the City: YOU ASK, WE ANSWER — What’s a Recall?

They’re out today, trying to gather signatures, handing out the above flyers. Earlier this week there was a long advertisement for the recall effort:

Red Wing recall movement hits the streets for signatures

Residents point to firing of Roger Pohlman along with open meeting violation as reason for signing petitions.

And some great Letters to the Editor in today’s bEagle – click for larger version:

“Pathetic malcontents” pretty much says it all.

My $0.02:

Note that the recall petitions they’re trotting around only complain of open meeting law violations (click for larger version):

When they say “by voting unlawfully to deny an open City Council session for consideration disciplinary action against Chief Roger Pohlman, thus infringing upon the rights of the public…” it seems to me that what they wanted was a open IN PERSON meeting at City Hall, so they could storm City Hall!

Pohlman had a “name clearing” hearing, and here’s what it looked like outside City Hall — is there anyone under 50 in this sparse under-50 group:

These are the initial flyers about the recall:

And then there’s the ~250 “Petition” that had typed names, no signatures, people living outside of Red Wing and even in Wisconsin!! Several have complained that their name was used improperly.

And some more primary documentation — the initial campaign report with significant LARGE anonymous donations:

Here are the reports, initial and “amended.” SNORT!

6-1 vote? You LOST!

Here’s another recall, recall denied 6-1 by City Council.

Blue Earth denies recall petition

BLUE EARTH — After nearly an hour of discussion which included a report from an attorney and input from members of the public and the council themselves, the Blue Earth City Council voted 6 to 1 to deny a petition calling for a recall election of a council member. The decision came at the beginning of the regular City Council meeting last Monday night. A group of citizens had previously presented the petition calling for a recall election of councilman John Huisman. The reason given was that Huisman had violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution due to his co-signing a letter to KBEW radio station concerning removal of a radio program. The letter also threatened to organize a boycott of the station if the program was not removed. At a previous special council meeting the council decided to postpone a decision on the petition until after having an independent attorney study the legalities. At Monday’s meeting, attorney Christopher Kennedy of Mankato gave both a verbal and written report. At the end of Kennedy’s four-page report, he stated the members of the recall committee on this matter had done everything that was required of them to institute the recall of the council member, following all the requirements set out in the City Charter.“The language of the Charter, however, is in conflict with the provisions of the Minnesota State Constitution that there must be an allegation of malfeasance or nonfeasance in order to remove an official,” Kennedy stated. “The allegations in this matter do not meet that definition ­- so the recall petition should be denied.”Kennedy also stated he felt that if the council did accept the petition, councilman Husiman’s attorney could take the matter to District Court and would win a decision that the petition was not valid. Mayor Rick Scholtes was the lone vote against the motion to deny the petition.“I feel we need to follow our City Charter now,” Scholtes said. “And in the future change the Charter to follow the constitution.”Kennedy had stated earlier in the meeting that in the future the city of Blue Earth should amend the Charter to include language that is consistent to the Minnesota State Constitution.

https://www.fairmontsentinel.com/news/local-news/2021/04/07/blue-earth-denies-recall-petition/

This article has a little more meat on it:

BE Council denies recall petition

Vote is 6-1 after hearing attorney’s opinion on the legal issues

This is the part that is most important, the notion of malfeasance or non-feasance:

At the end of Kennedy’s four-page report, he stated the members of the recall committee on this matter had done everything that was required of them to institute the recall of the council member, following all the requirements set out in the City Charter.

“The language of the Charter, however, is in conflict with the provisions of the Minnesota State Constitution that there must be an allegation of malfeasance or nonfeasance in order to remove an official,” Kennedy stated. “The allegations in this matter do not meet that definition ­- so the recall petition should be denied.”

Once more with feeling… Ya say ya wanna do a recall, but I say NO! NO! NO!