Wisconsin Appeal Update

Filed under:Uncategorized — posted by admin on September 24, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

Well, it’s not quite an appeal, it’s “Judicial Review” at the Circuit Court of Wisconsin.

If you recall, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission staff has objected to the appeal and has brought a Motion to Strike and Objection to Pro Hac Vice Admission.

PSC’s Objections filed 8/29/12

Since then, the judge sent a letter noting her past limited experience with transmission lines when she worked at the DNR:

Letter – Judge Smith

The PSC said they had no issues with her past work, no perception of conflict.  About the same time, I filed a response to the PSC’s filings, also noting no perception of conflict and that I saw no reason to recuse:

NoCapX and CETF Response to PSC’s Motions

In this Response, I laid out actions of PSC counsel, including in the Affidavit the basics of a phone call that sure felt like a threat to me, and which left PSC staff puzzled when I checked in about non-WI attorneys practicing before the PSC.  To head off any problem, I filed a formal Request to Appear and Participate, and was told, well DUH, you don’t need to do that at the PSC.

And here’s the PSC”s response, noting “The person named in that affidavit and brief should not be subject to a public record disparaging her professionalism, particularly when those pleadings are irrelevant to the instant dispute.”  Not relevant?  So Diane Ramthun is not responsible or accountable for her prior statements to me regarding unauthorized practice of law?  They don’t want information about that in the public record?  Perhaps then that sort of communication shouldn’t be happening.

PSC Reply Brief September 17, 2012

And as basis for tossing me out, they attach a Marathon County Circuit Court case tossing out Meg Sheehan’s appeal of a request for a Contested Case in an AIR PERMIT, and not a PSC case, and one where she had not been representing an Intervenor at the agency, either the DNR or the Public Service Commission!!!  Oh, right… good support there.  That’s not the same situation at all, and is yet another example of how hard they’re working to keep me out of Wisconsin and keep this out of the Circuit Court.

Apparently, the judge isn’t in a hurry to toss this out, she has now sent a scheduling order for these issues:

Judge Smith’s Letter and Scheduling Order

By this Order, here’s the schedule:

October 5th, 2012 – Permittees Response to Above Motion (see below)

October 15, 2012 – Petitioners’ (NoCapX/CETF) Response to Motion

October 29, 2012 – Respondent’s (PSC) Reply

And not surprisingly, Xcel et al., Permittees, have filed a letter and said they do won’t be briefing this (hey, why bother?!  I’d guess they figure it’s not worth the time, DUH!!!):

Xcel Letter – No Briefing on PSC’s Motions

PSC, get over it.  You tried before to have me booted out at the PSC, claiming Wisconsin law prohibited my representation of parties before the Commission, and you were wrong then, and you’re wrong now.  Let’s get on to dealing with the substantive issues… but we can’t have that happening now, can we?

2 comments »

  1. OMD! My eyeballs are spinning @ what you are accomplishing!

    Comment by Toni Yeske — September 24, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

  2. Let the mighty tremble!

    Comment by Irv Balto — September 25, 2012 @ 7:18 am

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)




image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace