consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Under my radar for about a month; but all politics is local.

Harry Niska is bright. A bright lawyer. I got to know that while he was vice-chair of Ramsey's Charter Commission. If I were constructing some intricate business operation and/or had complex business litigation issues and could afford his fee, I'd be happy were he to represent me. If he's been practicing much other than business law, I could not say. The only Google Scholar online links I found are here and here. (A case that never should have happened through no fault of Niska.)

He's with Ross and Orenstein, LLC, in Minnesota:

with this as the firm's Niska bio.


That litigation experience listing mentions more than Google Scholar returned by searching "Harry Niska," where representations under his full given name might have been missed via that search.

A business lawyer. Clearly so. With "bizlaw" embedded in the firm's website name.

After saying Niska is bright; Is He Ambitious? You decide:

source: CFB, here

source: CFB, here

Has he good political judgment, blowing a certain dog whistle via nominal campaign chair identity? You decide that too. Peggy Scott is like Abigale Whalen. (If you don't believe me, ask Whelan, she'd be happy to have the discussion.)

However, anybody who would not want himself and the chosen political party he's associated himself with making an endorsement of Tim Tingelstad and/or Dan Griffith, for whatever reasons he contested that, cannot be all bad. (Niska's lawyer in that case presently is registered with the CFB as Niska's campaign treasurer; i.e., of a feather and still flocking together.)

Now, is he right for the job? The answer to that, knowing nothing of Doug Wardlow as the other 2017 AG Republican wannabe, I'd trust Harry more than an unknown person, and given Swanson's incumbency strength on the DFL side if there ends up being a primary I'd consider crossing over to vote for Harry as devil [i.e., Republican] I know. Actually, if Swanson's Democratic Party opposition involves either an Our Revolution or a Justice Democrats endorsement, I'd stay in the Dem primary and vote then, if such endorsements arise, for change. Some things preempt others, and it's not saying Swanson's done a particularly good, nor particularly bad job. Just, voting one's conscience. But I digress.

Now my complaints - No. 1. A nothingburger of an "issue" page; lame beyond excuse:

It is lame to put on the web:

I’m running to enforce and uphold the law on behalf of all Minnesotans in every courtroom.

when the defining issue of the day, law-wise, is Daudt and confederates passing a poison pill to Dayton, and Dayton saying, "See you and raise you one." So, Harry, which side would you, as hypothetical present AG, "enforce?" One knows Harry would be intrigued by the situation, he has that kind of mind, and my belief is he'd say the legislature has Constitutional power to do what they did, and because the line item veto is Constitutional, Dayton too acted within his powers, and it is not a justiciable controversy because the judicial branch, in deference to its place, must allow a political question between the other two branches to either stall the government with all the mischief the Daudt first shot would entail; or there must be reasonableness given that the first poison pill did not poison the well and if good sense had prevailed it would never have been delivered. Within legislative powers, and making good sense often are incongruent. Daudt and confederates were horses asses in doing what they did, and Dayton was correct on calling them out so that Daudt et al. will be the ones bending to reason.

Dayton's had his two term elections and the Republican instigators will want to keep their paychecks; so they must cave in. If the court gets it right in any event.

But where's Harry? Big key issue and he's feeding issue-pablum via his website, as if we cannot see it as such and thus insulting.

Moreover, what content are we to read into, "enforce and uphold the law," when separation of church and state stands as the bedrock principle underlying a state and nation's public education being free of religious school voucherism? In that sense, the website's vacuous statement begs to be fleshed out in detail.

private church school tykes singing, "I Can Talk to God"

Complaint No. 2 -- AND THIS COULD BE BIG: This is based on a presumption that the Jen Niska who posted that YouTube is Harry's spouse, and that their children go to a private school WHERE at a young age they are brought to sing, "I can talk to god."

I gravely fear any chance whatsoever of an AG not dedicated one hundred percent to public education and only to that: for taxpayer money only going to public education, not vouchers, as that DeVos idiot advocates.

If a different Jen Niska posted that YouTube video, no problem. If it's from the Jen Niska of Harry and Jen in Ramsey, Minnesota - BIG TIME PROBLEM. Some taxpayers, not having children willingly pay public school taxes in order to have a body of educated generations taking over things as elders age and die. Taxation of the public, education-wise, is for public schooling and for nothing else, and if some want to send their children to a Legacy Christian Academy, then on their nickle, not somebody else's. I trust public education. I advocate spending more to make it better. It is the future of town, state, and nation being shaped.



That said, I am not as good as a facial recognition program in NSA hands in determining whether the person in that video is the same Jen Niska pictured here, here and here. But I think it is.

I was wrong. I cut more slack than to think knee-jerk party-line narrowness:

Apparently that nothingberger "issues" fluff thing had a purpose. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander is an older saying than some recognize.

Anyway, expecting more than that is subject to a "twit" - isn't that what you call a twitter post - by length limits, so that thought and analysis take a back seat. For those interested, here and here. It is not a facile thing. But those twits can make it seem so. At least this twit is reassuring that Harry would be protective of everyone's right to finance through taxes only inviolable public education free of shady special-interest voucher looting done as if the establishment clause had never been written:

Apart from Twitter and its twits - that is what they're called, yes/no? - an earlier post here.

___________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
It appears Niska did a Facebook post somewhere about the "See ya, raise ya," but I don't do Facebook, so if a reader would send me a screencapture of it, I will post it, in fairness to Harry since the implication is he fashioned a Constitutional argument, and again, he is bright so it must have been coherent in disposing of the political question - justiciability objection. The belief that handwaving can overcome the pure stupidity of legislative defunding the Department of Revenue would only resonate with a bunch of lawyers anyway. Real people would see, "Hey, you've killing the government that way, or making the threat to, and that's an Anarchist at work, doing that." Handing a Governor an anarchist document seems to suggest legislators suffering substance abuse, that or the Mark Twain "but I am repeating myself" quote:

More so, for the fish in a smaller pond than Congress. (Did Twain know some ancestor of Paul Ryan? Or of DWS?)

No comments: