Wisconsin – Response to PSC’s Motions

Filed under:Appeal,Hampton-Alma-LaCrosse — posted by admin on October 14, 2012 @ 6:26 am

As you may recall, the PSC had filed Motions to have the No CapX 2020 and CETF Petition for Judicial Review booted out, and to have me as attorney for No CapX 2020 and CETF  booted out as well.

Here is the No CapX 2020 and CETF response to the latest PSC filing:

No CapX 2020 and CETF Response Oct 12 2012

The best part of Friday’s Response is that the PSC had used a Marathon Circuit Court Order as basis for tossing me out, stating in their brief that:

On the other hand, at least one circuit court has found that permission to practice before a state agency is not sufficient to entitle a nonresident lawyer to practice before a circuit court.  SOAR v. DNR, No. 11-CV-0833 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Marathon County October 10, 2011)(courtesy copy attached).

PSC Reply Brief September 17, 2012, p. 4.  THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. REALLY!  Look at the Marathon County Order they cite and attach and compare with what they SAY it says:

Marathon County Circuit Court Order, October 11, 2011

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.  That Court Order states twice that “it was not signed by an attorney licensed to practice in Wisconsin.”  That’s all.  There’s NO statement that “permission to practice before a state agency is not sufficient to entitle a nonresident lawyer to practice before a circuit court.” Nothing, nothing whatsoever.

Not only that, but the nonresident attorney at issue didn’t even practice before a state agency!  The nonresident attorney at issue is Margaret (Meg) Sheehan, Ecolaw, in Massachusetts, an expert in air permits and biomass burning dedicated to fighting and shutting down incinerators.  She’s someone Alan has worked with, lobbied with, a burning cohort.  We knew they were misrepresenting that dismissal, and she quickly sent an Affidavit about that, specifically that she had NOT represented any party before the agency, before either the DNR or the PSC prior to filing the appeal that was dismissed, and that the Marathaon County case is not relevant:

Affidavit of Meg Sheehan

The two statements they make about that decision are false. It is SOOOOO naughty of PSC Counsel to misrepresent like this. See .”>Wis. Stat. 802.05(2). I’d love to file for sanctions, but I don’t think it would help any, so I’ll sit back and wait for the judge to decide.  The PSC gets one more round, and we’ll see what they have to say in reply.

Xcel Energy/Northern States Power is sitting out this dance.

Here are all the filings leading up to this, in chronological order:

PSC’s Objections filed 8/29/12

PSC Reply Brief September 17, 2012

NoCapX and CETF Response to PSC’s Motions

Xcel Letter – No Briefing on PSC’s Motions

Judge Smith’s Letter and Scheduling Order

zero comments so far »

Please leave a comment below!

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