Justice delayed is justice denied. So fund the courts.

This is an overdue post. Other things intervened. I remembered I had intended to post about the courts and their budget situation.

MPR reported a month ago, April 13.

Strib editorialized, same time frame, April 11.

Both items are still online.

Courts always have backlogs. Some worse than others. When there are backlogs things are delayed. When there are insufficient numbers of law clerks things are delayed or pushed out in less than perfect form. Orders and opinions either can be done with insufficient attention, or later than best. And criminal calendar matters, speedy trial rules, etc., intervene to push the civil calendar back in the queue.


The picture is from MPR, their caption, "Anoka County Judge John Hoffman in his courtroom. Anoka needs seven more court clerks, but can't hire them because there isn't enough money in the budget. (MPR Photo/Elizabeth Stawicki)."

I have seen one motions calendar heard by Judge Hoffman, where the bulk of the calendar was unopposed matters, with one matter opposed.

I have seen one recent trial last December in the Anoka County District 10 courts, and a total of five motions calendars (including the one with Hoffman presiding).

Six different judges, no overlap, while I was tracking the progress of two separate civil cases. In one of the cases each side was represented. In the other one side was pro se, meaning the client representing himself/herself without counsel appearing in the matter (although a lawyer might be consulted in an advisory capacity with the party still litigating pro se).

On at least two instances I observed, the same law clerk had been assisting separate judges. The norm is each judge has his/her own law clerk, a recent law school graduate of above average standing in his/her graduating class, and the position is important to keep the courts functioning. The term "clerk" now suggests a functionary with limited duty, but before there were law schools one became learned in the law by clerking. Abe Lincoln did not go to law school. He clerked.

Unlawful detainer matters are heard on the motions calendar, i.e., ouster of tenants from housing by their landlords, with right to possession the limited issue. That is the most frequently calendared thing I have seen on motions calendars. It is routine, mostly, probably where the phrase, "Going through the motions," originated.

But some matters result in orders and opinions, and that takes time. Things are taken under advisement. After a hearing or trial with things under advisement statutes or court rules, I am not sure which, permit a judge 90 days to hold a case under advisement without any earlier duty to issue a ruling. And if something is not wrapped up in that time, no sane lawyer would oppose giving a judge more time if requested. That would be like provoking a pit bull unnecessarily - no good for the client would ensue, and the lawyer might end up chewed up, one way or another.

With that as background, last month MPR reported:

The governor and the Legislature are both calling for spending cuts for Minnesota's courts as a way to balance the state's budget. But those who work in the judicial system say they simply can't absorb any more. They say they've already eliminated critical positions and any further cuts will seriously jeopardize the state's system of justice.

Last year Gov. Pawlenty appointed two additional judges in Anoka County based on the county's burgeoning caseload. One of those judges, Tom Fitzpatrick, took the oath Jan. 1.

"The idea was that this courthouse would be fully equipped, 17 judges and 17 courtrooms simultaneously, and right now we don't have the budget to do that because we don't have the staff to support all 17 judges at once," said Fitzpatrick.

Judges are the public faces in courtrooms, but they don't work alone. They depend on administrative clerks to file and update court documents, fill out forms, take notes in court, and swear in witnesses. Right now, Anoka needs seven more clerks but can't hire them because there isn't enough money in the budget.

Judge John Hoffman who's been an Anoka judge for 11 years said that means the current clerks can't keep up.

"It is pretty consistent now that when I get my files up the day before for review, that current pleadings are not in my files," said Hoffman. "There's been more than one occasion in the last year where I get attorneys in front of me, litigants in front of me and they're talking about documents and I don't have them."

In addition to administrative clerks, judges depend on law clerks. These are typically new attorneys who perform much of the legal research. They also schedule calendars and are the court's contacts with attorneys and other parties in cases. Under judicial ethics rules, judges aren't supposed to talk with one side in a case without the other side present.

Anoka can only afford to pay 13 law clerks for 17 judges so four judges at a time work for six months without one. One of those is Ellen Maas who's been an Anoka County judge for 13 years.

"I just got back from an extended vacation and my voice mail was filled with messages from attorneys, She said. "Now ethically, I can't return those calls. I'm scrambling now because…I have a four week trial coming up in May involving four fatalities. I have no staff for that."

The budget problem facing the 10th district, which includes Anoka is not unique. The Minnesota court system as a whole has held open 207 positions or 7 percent of its staff, encouraged employees to take leaves without pay, closed public counters a half day a week in three districts and will close a satellite court in Washington County July 1.

And for the first time, districts are laying off personnel. The third district has given layoff notices to five long-term employees who will lose their jobs at the end of April. The tenth district has layoff plans. Now the governor is proposing to cut funding for the courts by 4 percent or $13 million which would cost another 220 positions.

Minnesota Chief Justice Russell Anderson said such cuts would be "devastating." He said the courts can't just cut caseloads. They have to handle the cases that come through the doors, particularly criminal cases. The Constitution mandates that the courts also offer services such as interpreters; psychological testing; and jury costs--costs that have all been rising in the last year.

The state House and Senate have proposed smaller cuts in the court budget than Pawlenty, but Anderson said it's still too much.

"We have appreciated the Legislature's attempt to lessen these cuts, but even with the Legislature's proposal we're estimating that we would have as many as another 100 positions that would be lost," he said.

Before 2005, courts negotiated their budgets with individual county boards. Now decision-makers in St. Paul negotiate for the court system statewide. Those decision-makers include the State Court Administrator's office and the Judicial Council, a 25-member committee which includes judges and administrators, chaired by the Supreme Court Chief Justice.

The goal in moving to a state-funded system was to save money and provide an equal level of justice throughout the state.

But several Minnesota judges, including Anoka County Judge John Hoffman, say new negotiators haven't asked for enough.

"I think most legislators would tell us that they're shocked that we have the financial problems that we have," Hoffman said. "I think when the people that negotiate our budgets build into the process 2 percent raises and then negotiate with many of the collective bargaining agents, 3.5 percent raises and then say, 'you have a structural deficit. Fix it.' We were never in control of those decisions."

Chief Justice Russell Anderson said the executive branch has much larger unions and the court system has to follow their lead.

"We certainly have to follow their lead in the negotiations," he said. "And I would say to our critics, 'where have you been? Where have you been when the rest of us have been over there day and night?' This just doesn't happen by staying home and complaining about St. Paul."

Other judges have told MPR privately they've tried to have a bigger say in budgeting. They say they've been told the court speaks with only one voice and that voice comes from St. Paul.

The judges said they wanted to speak on the record but were afraid that if they did, their districts might get penalized in future funding decisions.

I have not kept up with the situation, MPR reported that at the time there was conference committee work going on in the legislature on budget bills, with the ultimate say being the governor's via line item veto (as I understand it he can cut an item but not pencil it in for a newer higher or lower number - and he would not veto an entire court appropriation). I expect the final result will be in the last days of session, and the courts will not get enough. MPR noted, "the courts portion of the budget is only a small part of the overall negotiations over the state's $935 million projected deficit."

Strib's editorial from last month was supportive of the judiciary:

Minnesota's executive and legislative branches aren't the only parts of state government that feel pinched when the economy turns sour. The third branch of government, the court system, sees more cases of domestic violence, marriage dissolution, child protection, debt collection, foreclosure and low-level criminal activity. Constitutionally mandatory expenses for psychological services, interpreters and juries are all rising fast this year.

That makes this a bad time for Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature to cut court budgets. Yet Pawlenty recommended a $9 million reduction in the state's judiciary funding for the coming fiscal year -- 4 percent of nonmandated salaries. The Legislature's conference committee is considering smaller figures, but still has a court funding reduction in its sights. Facing a $935 [million] deficit, many difficult budget decisions are being made in St. Paul this year. But viewed in the context of a $34 billion budget, the governor and Legislature should be able to find room to maintain a quality court system.

This is the second year in a row that court administration has been on the budget chopping block. The 2007 Legislature allocated $13 million less than the courts projected for employee costs through mid-2009.

As a result, judicial staffing already has been cut 7 percent around the state. Public service counters have been closed one-half day per week in three of the state's judicial districts, including the largest, Hennepin County. Hennepin has also stopped doing criminal-background checks for the public and terminated arbitration services. The Rochester-based Third Judicial District cut the frequency of conciliation court and extended jury terms. A satellite court in Washington County has been closed.

That's the story the state's about-to-retire judicial branch CEO, Chief Justice Russell Anderson, is telling anyone who'll listen these days. He's spending his final weeks in office pleading that the judiciary be spared from the latest round of state budget cuts.

His message deserves heed. Courts are a bedrock function of democratic government. Yet justice delayed, and hence denied, will be the story in every courthouse in Minnesota if Pawlenty's proposal becomes law, Anderson warns. Staff reduction in this biennium would swell to 15 percent, the chief justice said in a recent letter to the State Bar Association. Drug and conciliation courts would be curtailed or eliminated, and some courthouses may close.

The courts don't come to the Capitol with the well-heeled special interest friends that defend other parts of the state budget. But they have Minnesota's foundational compact on their side -- and for elected officials sworn to uphold the state Constitution, that ought to count for much.

So in a nutshell, at least three factors - first, everyone gets cut, so the courts get cut; second, the pay rate negotiation does not involve the judiciary but they are bound by its results so they cannot meet budget by adjusting compensation, only by cutting head count; and last, the lobbyists take care of the special interests [think of Elwyn Tinklenberg's many Tinklenberg Group contracts with municipalities to aid their transportation funding thirsts] while the courts do not hire or use lobbying; and get disadvantaged because of it.

More reason to dislike the "way things are done" with revolving door lobbyists, and to not want to send one of them to DC as my representative, where the pool for such mischief as lobbyists do for a living is far bigger and I worry the man will mainly focus on making contacts, and in two years time, if elected now, will be back through the revolving door in the lobby when Minnesota is projected to lose a seat and it likely will be via the Sixth District being cut up and parceled out to other existing districts. I would hate to see my vote have any chance of going to a career politician - revolving door lobbyist who would or even could view the thing as a two year paid opportunity, with pension and health benefits, to build up the lobbying rolodex. Two more years of Michele Bachmann in the minority, juxtaposed against that; who is to say what is worse. Neither option is in any way appealing, in my view.

The junta needs rice not BLO and GOs, but there's spare cash for junta lobbyists. They give it to Norm Coleman, it's green, and he's keeping it.

So why does the junta like Norm? Have they been given Asian distribution rights for the BLO and GO? I doubt it. But John McCain put distance in place when the story broke. Norm wants to keep the campaign funds the junta lobbyists gave him. The DFL says that is shabby. Norm says Franken used to work at Air America talk radio and asks questions. A good question is why anyone would listen to that talk radio junk, from either Air America or Rush, but aside from that the junta is in a different league altogether.

You be the judge. I don't like military juntas. Not Somoza's, not this one. The GOP seems more amenable to them than I am. Iran-Contra and all that earlier stuff. Now it's Norm Coleman and the generals.

Here's the reporting, via an excerpt from PiPress picking up Fred Frommer's Tuesday, May 13, AP wirefeed.

WASHINGTON—The Minnesota DFL called Tuesday on Sen. Norm Coleman to divest campaign donations made by employees of a firm that lobbied for Myanmar's junta, three days after the firm's chief executive resigned as coordinator of this year's Republican National Convention.

At issue are donations from [lobbyist] DCI Group's political action committee and employees. The firm's chief executive, Doug Goodyear, who had been picked by John McCain's campaign to run the convention in St. Paul, resigned from that role Saturday after Newsweek reported that the company was paid $348,000 in 2002 and 2003 to represent Myanmar's military government.

The DFL urged Coleman, R-Minn., to donate to charity the roughly $10,000 in donations made to his campaign and leadership PAC by DCI's PAC and employees, including Goodyear.

"Senator Coleman should rid himself of tainted contributions from DCI, a lobbying firm that has represented an oppressive regime that is denying vital assistance to its own people during a time of crisis," DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez said.

He also called on Coleman to reveal what he discussed with DCI lobbyists, including whether the firm lobbied him on behalf of Myanmar's junta.

Justice Department records show DCI signed a contract to work to "improve relations between the United States and Myanmar" and to act as the junta's public relations agent in Washington.

In a statement, Coleman campaign spokesman Tom Erickson referenced an improper $875,000 transfer from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club in New York City to the liberal radio network Air America when Franken was a star host there. That transfer prompted a probe by the city's Department of Investigation.

"Franken continues to remain silent about his role in this matter," Erickson said. "As for returning a legal contribution from an individual and company engaged in legal activities, of course we will not be returning the contribution."

"Norm Coleman took nearly $10,000 from a firm representing an oppressive military regime," Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said in an e-mail. "He won't return the money, and he won't say what he did in return for it. That's shocking. And if the best he can do by way of explaining this stunning and suspicious behavior is to recycle long-discredited smears, Minnesotans are going to start to wonder if there isn't an even uglier story soon to come."

I only wonder, did the junta first seek Elwyn Tinklenberg as its lobbyist, and get turned down and only then turn to these other folks?

Probably not.

The likelihood of the junta getting federal highway funds is so remote anyway, that the Tinklenberg Group probably was not even viewed as a player.

But -- the article suggests the big question is whether there was any quid pro quo.

If that has legs, Norm's got some explaining to do. McCain wants distance and deniability. Norm wants to keep the cash.

And that lame response, it's not trying to add apples and oranges, it's responding to concern about ties to a reprehensible and represive junta; vs. talk radio.

Yes, talk radio is awful. Yes the entire phenomenon, Rush and Jason Lewis especially, is very, very strange and distasteful.

But even on the GOP side of that spectrum and at its vilest, it's not the same as having ties of any nature to a junta or to those promoting the junta as just fine.

________UPDATE________
As a thought I had when reading the reporting, I should have said this in the post and not as an update. However, this is Franken people critical of Coleman's junta money ties then Coleman's people critical of Franken's talk radio money ties. In all of that one thing is missing. Jack Nelson Pallmeyer is clear on his views of how our nation should relate to other nations of the world, ones less wealthy, and it is clearly a view that is 180 degrees away from taking cash from represive junta affiliates. Jack is squeaky clean in his money affairs, and is an exemplary person. We should all strive to be as good as Jack. Yet Coleman gets press coverage, Franken gets press coverage, and because Jack Nelson Pallmeyer IS so squeaky clean, he gets no attention. AND THE DFL ENDORSEMENT CONVENTION FOR ITS SENATE CANDIDATE HAS NOT YET BEEN HELD. FRANKEN IS HOPEFUL, NOT ANOINTED OR APPOINTED. BE PROGRESSIVE. THINK JACK.

True Patriots Act.

I will jump around with this post, but for coherence, it is about privacy.

First here's what one of the little hummers look like, with redactions (where it could be you) and with a lot of background scanner/copier "noise."






Isn't that last page special?

Even the criteria of what they might be poking the long noses into is secret.

I got it off the Internet.

An NSL. That's National Security Letter. Mailed out per the pernicious federal statute named in true Orwellian doublespeak, the Patriot Act.

If your local library got one with your name on it, or your ISP got one for you, that is about what they would have gotten. And they could not tell you or anyone else about it. And no reviewing judge need spend time. Court approval in advance of propounding the inquiry is not required.

And because their very existence is secret, this one getting published is an anomaly. An unusual chance to see what one looks like, unless you are a librarian or ISP officer, or otherwise a recipient.

You wonder whether the postal carrier is sworn to secrecy, or if you don't wonder that, I do.

They must have special nationwide fleet of special postal staff, looking like Herzog's Don Aguirre or like characters out of Terry Gilliam's Brazil, to deliver these top secret letters.






It is an inside-out Omerta, where cooperation with the government is kept secret, and not where secrets are kept by noncooperation.

It is paid for by your taxes.

Again, the document source is about the Internet Archive [aka the WayBack Machine] which is a useful tool to see what, for example, a lawfirm like Dorsey Whitney had on its website about lawyer Jay Lindgren and Ramsey Town Center in the luster days before the thing landed in reality with a big bug-on-the-windshield splat.

That archive service allows you to see what Dorsey Whitney scrubbed.

Or you can go WayBack in time, and see what the now defunct Nedegaard financed Ramsey Town Center LLC's website, ramsey03.com, had to say about Natalie Steffen at the Town Center Groundbreaking back in 2003, etc.

I will not give those archive links. Work your way through the navigation for yourself if you care to. Learn to use the resource.

I downloaded the above NSL, originally posted as redacted in pdf format, here.

Internet Archive posts about their giving their single finger salute to the FBI, here. That page gives links to other coverage. The EFF, an organization all freedom loving people should know of and support, on its homepage features the litigation against the FBI, (in which it played a key role), here.

EFF gives its detailed account of things, here, including of all things, an archive of litigation papers from the lawsuit.

This is one of those morning coffee, that's interesting things to read - but then I decided to post when I thought of my intellectual mentor in these things, TwoPuttTommy; he being my mentor via his email "signature"

It’s A Great Day To Be A Veteran

NOTICE: The National Security Agency ('NSA') of the United States may have read this email without warning, warrant, nor notice, nor legislative or judicial oversight. You may not review the secret file so derived nor challenge actions resulting from it. The US President, through the use of 'signing statements', further reserves the right to circumvent any legislation restricting this exercise of executive authority or assigning executive accountability. For this reason the owner of this email account cannot ensure the privacy of this communication.

And do other true patriots act up, about the NSA spying, trying to quell the offensive practice?

EFF does, here. In great detail, and it probably will make TwoPutter smile to see company in that quest.

Anyone who has exchanged emails with TwoPuttTommy will instantly recognize that signature ending to his messages AND TwoPuttTommy made the daily newspaper news, in a way, with Strib today reporting about Ron Carey living in a glass house while throwing a truckload of stones at Al Franken's people's handling of accounts. Apparently Strib took notice, as it reports, when,

A left-leaning blogger tried to ask Carey about the party’s FEC reports at a news conference the GOP called last week to highlight Franken’s problems. Carey dismissed him, saying the press briefing “is something for our credentialed media here.”

Carey did not respond this week to Star Tribune requests for an interview about the FEC filings.

“Just like any political entity, the Republican Party of Minnesota continues to work with the FEC to make certain our filings are in compliance,” party spokesman Mark Drake said in an e-mail Tuesday.

Take you hat off, TwoPutter, and salute the flag. It's you they mean.

And to go back full-circle, that Internet Archive NSL target - was it me, was it you, was it TwoPuttTommy? We will not know and can only guess. My guess?

It was not Michele Bachmann. It was not Elwyn Tinklenberg. They're both likely okay with the FBI. Only malcontents would be targeted. My guess - Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, who had the malcontentious termerity to whistleblow on the stupidity and bureaucratic mindsets of her FBI superiors when strange people were showing up in flying schools and wanting to know how to manage commercial jet in-the-air flight without being interested in how to land one of those aircraft. Then, beyond that attention getter as "not a real team player" she had the further termerity of wanting to unseat Col. Kline from his place in Congress, another thing the FBI et al. might not have liked. More "not a real team player" stuff.

So, without anything else to go on, my guess is ex-FBI agent Colleen Rowley was the undisclosed target of the FBI's NSL in the Internet Archive, et al v Mukasey et al, No. 07-6346-CW (N.D. Cal) litigation. Clearly as a voice of discord that way, and as a true patriot acting up, she was a nail that stood up. And we all know that old saying. And bloggers, they often are voices of discord, acting-up, and they have that habit - ferreting around the internet and when current postings are in question, or unavailable, they have that other habit, using Internet Archive as a bit more ferreting. So, me, TwoPuttTommy, any one of us caring to raise a public voice, any of us could have been the target of the secret NSL that EFF, ACLU and Internet Archive had the will to oppose.

Or it could have been Bruce Nedegaard, J. Scott Renne, or Bill Sandison. The three were under federal investigation. However ---

My second guess is they'd focused on Tuttle but there was a bug in the computer.






Finally, for all of us who would like to tell the FBI and the NSA and George Bush and Dick Cheney about what we think about the things they are doing to our liberty and privacy and pride in America, there is this:





_______UPDATE_______
I forgot these C/net News links that give history, and link to online pdf copies of a judicial opinion on constitutionality of the secret NSL procesures (see c/net, here); along with a link to a 2007 Justice Dept. Inspector General report on FBI handling and "serious misuse" of FBI surveilance authorization, including its NSL powers (at c/net, here).

Each pdf is 100+ pages, so I recommend scanning them, over detailed study. The judge writes double space, but it's legalese. The Inspector General report is single space and twice as many pages.

Ramsey Town Center in the news again, sort of, actually same old, same old. What about the Barabo solution?

A ton of money, but private money was spent keeping that horse alive, even in a sling, and ultimately the only choice was euthanasia.

What about that, for Town Center? Instead of more of the same old flavor, with Strib reporting May 5, 2008, "Bank wants out of Ramsey Town Center restrictions"?

The bank let Bruce Nedegaard and henchmen sell off half the land without paying down any part of the debt and now says the plan is unrealistic, flawed or stupid.

If they want stupid, give them a mirror.

So they can see an asleep-at-the-due-diligence-switch kind of being stupid.

Really stupid. Not watching the security. You always concentrate on the security.

Cut the losses, since any spending, we can anticipate would be a ton of taxpaper money, spent anew, because of sunk loss.

In business, no sane decision is based on sunk loss. Only potential for a yield matters. If there is no potential, and there really is none, then be sane, and go for the Barabo solution. Cut future losses. Tell the bank the plan is the plan, it binds them, as has been the City's litigation position, and then sit.

Let the bank do as it chooses. Just do not bleed the taxpayers anymore for the lost cause, and don't unrealistically say that any sunk loss can be recaptured easily.

With the market as it is now for shared-wall dense housing in the exurbs, get real.

_______UPDATE_______
An interesting comment was left claiming the loan was paid down but the principal balance remained the same because people were working the money not giving it to the bank. But beyond that, I had a chance to see a rebroadcast part of the most recent Ramsey City Council meeting - the tail end of discussion about authorizing city spending a good part of a million dollars for lighting and sidewalks along a virtually deserted street. City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the money is in a pot with some strings tied to it (and arguably to the interest it earns if the city sits on the cash as reserves) - but he quite practically noted, the only party having a right to contest how the earmarked pot of money gets spent is Ramsey Town Center LLC. Defunct, buried, bankrupt ventures usually don't sue over something that will put no money into the LLC or the onwership pockets. Not his exact words, but he more tersely noted that as a realistic thought. There's a lot of very costly Town Center storm water drainage money being spent. If the slush fund is not tapped for that costly work then taxpayers are.

Ben keeps smiling.

And one council member saying, in effect, it is something Ramsey can be proactive about, so let's do it. No rationale other than that. Light the vacant empty street and sidewalks once we put the sidewalks in before there is construction, if there ever is, to tear up the sidewalks and fend around the lightpoles.

Hooey. Not even a good appearance of thinking. Why waste?

The silly season officially has started again.

This letter, to the St. Cloud Times editor - Elwyn Tinklenberg is the greatest thing to happen since sliced bread and bottled beer. He will save our nation from mishap, sin, perdition, you name it, he's THE MAN.

Pat Welter says so.

Read it, it is not exactly worded that way, but the gist is the gist.

Then, Freedom rings a totally different tune - Right wing blog stupidity and all, worth quoting:

Here’s what Welter said that I find objectionable:

"He knows it’s time to recommit to our ideals and find ways to get beyond what divides us. And because he knows how to build coalitions, because he is not an 'either/or' politician who says 'my way or the highway,' Tinklenberg gets things done. And importantly, he does it in an ethical way. We need that in the 6th."

Frankly, it’s impossible for me to think of a former lobbyist as appealing to our higher ideals. As for Tinklenberg getting things done, that isn’t difficult when you’re spreading the money around. That isn’t the type of leadership we need in Washington. There’s already too many hogs at that trough.

I’d argue that someone that’s already decided to impeach President Bush before articles of impeachment are even debated in the House Judiciary Committee and before he’s even been elected isn’t ethical. Doesn’t Mr. Tinklenberg think that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the justice system? Shouldn’t he at least know what the charges are before forming an opinion? Shouldn’t he base his opinion on something resembling verifiable proof?

That isn’t ethical leadership. That’s unprincipled pandering for votes to win an endorsement. That isn’t what we need in Washington.

What’s needed is Michele Bachmann’s type of principled leadership. To my recollection, Michele doesn’t pander for votes. She says what she thinks. What’s most impressive is that Michele has a set of unshakeable set of core beliefs, which include prosperity and freedom at the top of her list.

The differences between an anything goes politician like Mr. Tinklenberg and a principled politician like Michele are numerous and obvious. The last thing we need is another anything goes politician in Washington.

Well, my own impression is the guy is right and Elwyn Tinklenberg never met a dollar he didn't like.

And in quoting the Welter letter, Tinklenberg's been clear in saying my way is the highway. Unlike Bob Olson, Elwyn Tinklenberg really does not know much else. His way is the highway, his million or more in lobbying-consulting income is from the highway, and he'd pave it with what he's been paid to advocate and advance.

To me, those are not the most ethical things, but Ms. Welter says Elwyn has been behaving in an ethical way when he's getting things done (and presumably when collecting the fees and cashing the checks made out to Tinklenberg Group, for getting things done, or promising or trying to get things done), and she would not have a prejudged bias at all, would she?

Also my impression; Bush should be impeached for arrogance and lying so he could ramp up a failed jingoistic oil war [which had it succeeded, would have been as immoral but not as unpopular - where I saw Jim Baker in a soundbite blurb on the tube advertising an upcoming PBS documentary on George H.W. Bush, Baker saying, roughly, "They pestered me about why we did not then go on to Bhagdad; now they are not asking me that anymore."]

And Michele Bachmann, not pandering for votes?

Get real.

Kissing Bush after the speech was pandering for attention, and for Bachmann, historically, attention has yielded votes and she craves both with an almost pathological zeal.

But that Bush-kiss was Bachmann, small time pandering.

Big Time --- The Freedom Ring guy must not have seen the YouTube items Ken Avidor posted from last election cycle, Michele Bachmann playing the crowd as special guest at Pastor Mac's out-of-district circus show, saying God picked her for Congress - I suppose that was because He thought she should have the salary, attention, healthcare package, and pension rights - and not because she'd do anything because she hasn't.

The Freedom Ring guy has blinders on.

God must have too, if he chose Michele Bachmann.



But, does, just perhaps, Pat Welter have either blinders, or some meat in the fire?

Who might this citizen-writer, Pat Welter be? The freedom ringer never asked.

In the past Michele Bachmann's then press secretary, Heidi Fredrickson, a legacy Bachmann inherited from Mark Kennedy, took a lot of heat for soliciting "planted" letters to the editor, and now it appears to me that before Michele and crew can resurrect that shabby tactic, Elwyn Tinklenberg has used it.

For some flavor of why the neutral and unaligned Ms. Welter, Dr. Welter perhaps, may think well of Elwyn, is it possible, to use Lyndon Johnson's term, she's in the tent pissing out and not outside the tent where there'd be some chance she'd be pissing in?

Is this the same Pat Welter with an online presence, here, here, and here, with the LTE's existence prominently featured as Monday May 5, news, here?

Well, gee. This Pat Welter gets a local DFL "Wellstone Award," is in the teacher's union or that generic school administrator-teacher alliance, has been identified with the Campaign Finance Board as chair of a candidate's committee, and has her letter featured on the same local DFL website where her having in the past received the "Wellstone Award" was featured.

That's kind of shabby of the paper to post a letter like that without disclosing for the readership the built-in bias of the writer. It's not best journalism, in my view.

And how exactly does this differ from the bad, bad, "perhaps illegal" (if you believe Minnesota Monitor) solicitations of Ms. Fredrickson for Ms. Bachmann?

It differs in degree, perhaps, but not in kind.

Know the affiliation, then weigh the trustworthiness of the letter.

And if you doubt my "silly season" caption --- Michele not pandering for votes; Elwyn getting things done in an ethical way; each a backhanded stab at the other side, each a matter of opinion - of judgment - and each ringing more like a counterfiet coin than true gold, in my opinion.

Consistency should count for something. Credibility should count for a lot. Financial disinterest should factor in the equation. Miles Lord, A+.

First, Miles Lord has shown consistency. Before the recent circulation at a campaign event of a memo critical of attempted use of taconite mine waste in paving, the issue was phrased in similar wording, (as best as I understand the content of the item recently circulated), by Judge Lord roughly two years ago, per the included quote attributed to Judge Lord, within a City Pages Nov. 30, 2005, item authored by Mike Mosedale:

Hopstock and Zanko's proposal for the tailings is not without critics. At the Center for Transportation Studies seminar, two old lions of Minnesota's environmental movement--retired federal judge Miles Lord and former Minnesota Pollution Control Agency chief Grant Merritt--raised objections based on the possible health risks. Both Lord and Merritt are concerned because some taconite tailings are known to contain asbestos and asbestos-like fibers. Those fibers, they fear, may be related to the elevated levels of a rare but deadly cancer called mesothelioma on the Iron Range.

From 1988 to 1999, according to a 2003 Minnesota Department of Health study, there were 81 identified cases of mesothelioma among residents of northeastern Minnesota, nearly double the expected rate. For that reason alone, Merritt contends, any use of taconite tailings in highways should be subjected to a full environmental review.

Lord, who issued the landmark 1974 ruling that prohibited the dumping of taconite tailings into Lake Superior, takes a more conspiratorial view. The use of taconite tailings on highways, Lord contends, represents "a deliberate attempt by the taconite industry and its owners, 'Big Steel,' to spread deadly particles on Minnesota highways, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint the cause of cancer deaths on the Iron Range because cancer will occur throughout the state of Minnesota."

In Zanko's view, such claims are both needlessly inflammatory and "pretty much a red herring." He points out that the Department of Health study concluded that higher levels of mesothelioma on the Range were most likely the result of exposure to commercial asbestos, not taconite dust. A fellow at the University of Minnesota-Duluth's Natural Resources Research Institute, Zanko further notes that tailings have been used in road construction in northeast Minnesota for decades, without apparent ill effect. (And, he adds, highway engineers like using the tailings because they are very durable and have superior friction characteristics).

Zanko further points out that there is no proposal to use tailings from the eastern part of the Iron Range, where the asbestos-like fibers have been identified in taconite. The geology of five pits from the western part of the Range, he says, is markedly different. Examination of the tailings from that region has not revealed any significant levels of asbestos-like fibers.

None of this satisfies Miles Lord. He counters that the MDH taconite dust study was sharply criticized by some scientists for its methodology and conclusions. Additionally, Lord notes, at least one EPA scientist has gone on record stating that the testing of the western range for asbestos has been inadequate.

Zanko like Tinklenberg, is paid to think the way he does, NRRI having an advocacy tasking re the promotion of using Minnesota "natural resources" which is how he regards mine waste piles. That brings us to point three, financial stake vs financial disinterestedness, but not without first commenting on Point 2, basic credibility.

Miles Lord and Grant Merritt have it.

Zanko and Tinklenberg, form your opinion.

Mine is that they are lacking on the used car test. I would buy one from neither.

Who you trust is a matter of opinion - based on how you weigh the facts, but it is not a factual matter itself.

Factually, now point 3. Zanko's livelihood is NRRI, and NRRI is promoting the stuff.

Tinklenberg Group has been reported to me as having taken $94,280 in fees out of NRRI, if I recall the exact number correctly, and may have since received more. In exchange, it is looking at how the stuff can be marketed and shipped/trucked/railroaded upon the rest of us, cheaply and in bulk.

Tinklenberg Group is at trade shows, with Hard Rock hockey pucks and related hoopla, all aimed at selling and not critically judging the wisdom of using the potentially carcinogenic stuff in roads in front of your home and mine. It is not as if he knows the stuff is unsafe. He does not know, believes it okay, and will continue to beat the drums in exchange for cash until someone proves it a public health menace. That is his view of a responsible position in the matter. Not my view, his.

I give Judge Lord a grade of A+, both for his courage during the Reserve Mining litigation, and for his ongoing courage when he does not have a financial stake one way or the other in whether the material is used on the road in front of your home.

Tinklenberg and Zanko, their grade? You give it.

Why has the TINKLENBERG Campaign scrubbed its "Marlboro Man" rhetoric?

Apparently, the tinklenberg08.com website, on or about April 25, 2008, did some fairly quiet website scrubbing.

The obfuscating text that was scrubbed said:

Recently, the Star Tribune published an article that has led to some confusion regarding El's position on the use of taconite tailings in road construction. He believes that if scientific research conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that taconite tailings from the western side of the Iron Range are safe, we should find innovative, sustainable ways to recycle the by-product. Conversely, if the University finds taconite tailings to be unsafe, their use should be suspended immediately.

El has attempted to clear up these rumors in the past and will continue to do so until the voters know the facts about his position. Here is what El had to say earlier this year:

"The project I have worked on is sponsored by the University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) and is funded by a grant from the U.S. Economic Development Agency. The goal of the project is to conduct additional testing of by-products of taconite mining in the western portion of the iron range for suitability as transportation aggregate. The work is being led by the University.

"A secondary goal is to identify potential markets for the use of this material as a transportation aggregate, should the testing support it. That's the work in which I have been involved. The use of these western range materials in this way has consistently been approved by MnDOT, NRRI, the PCA and the EPA. Additional testing and monitoring is ongoing and should any concerns surface, I'm certain the University would suspend the project; an action I would support.

"For additional information you can contact Larry Zanko at the National Resources Research Institute."

If you hear any rumors about El's position on taconite tailings or his role in their use as transportation aggregate, make sure you help set the record straight. Your grassroots support and involvement will ensure that voters will make decisions informed by the facts, not gossip.

[italics added] This is standard cigarette company disingenuous obfuscation over carcinogenicity, repackaged. It is Elwny Tinklenberg as Marlboro Man.

The scrubbed text is largely what Elwyn Tinklenberg said to defend his actions-for-cash at the Anoka debate, and what he repeated in response to a taconite-related softball question he fielded at the DFL Sixth District Endorsement Convention - that if you prove the stuff unsafe, he will quit touting it and that Larry Zanko is a good man and Elwyn is confident that NRRI-Larry would behave accordingly. It stands a sane world upside down in an Alice in Wonderland fashion about which Elwyn Tinklenberg is too glib and dismissive.

Great. I have to prove a definitive hazard before a most questionable thing is forestalled. That's how you want it El? The Marlboro Man rides again. That litany was repeated by the cigarette cancer merchants time after time after time after time.

And it never sounded sensible from them either.

I have posted about the "precautionary principal" - that if you don't know if an activity is hazardous you show policy restraint until you prove it to be largely risk free. A quick feeling for the precautionary principle and its relation to burden of proof in a regulatory context is here, although only the abstract is available for free online. The article is about risks of industrial chemicals, and a European Union policy of having the regulatory burden of proof resting strongly, as a policy matter and not a matter of science, with the merchants of risk - the merchants wanting to market the material under review.

The burden is not merely one of coming forward with some evidence no matter how questionable, but rather a burden of substantial persuaveness, one that sets a quite high threshold before commodity commerce in questionable domains is permitted.

The burden of proof should not be merely one of coming forward with "something from NRRI-Larry" as Elwyn would obfuscate it to be - and then from that the rest of us are placed by that "Larry's stuff" under a burden to have to definitively prove Larry wrong. Alice found Wonderland inhospitable when she saw it ran that way.

In short, the sensible policy burden is that given the Reserve Mining litigation history, Larry has to be very, very, very, very convincing in his science, especially since Larry has an advocatorial bias built into his position from the get-go, in favor of a policy outcome that he's paid to want instituted.

Ditto for Elwyn. Same built-in bias. Perhaps more so. The Tinklenberg Group cashflow flows only if the material is moved along or periodic reporting shows activity clearly in that direction. Larry has a steady day job, Tinklenberg Group runs on fees.

The burden of proof for tailings-as-paving should be: You want to do THAT? My God, then YOU MUST BEFORE YOU START DOING ANY MISCHIEF CONVINCINGLY AND DEFINITIVELY PROVE there's absolutely no health risk to all the rest of us. Any lesser burden is unfair and a threat to the rest of us.

This deserves detailed thought. The NRRI-Tinklenberg position is, we did our crappy little study, with many questions left hanging including sampling adequacy, sampling bias, testing lab bias, best methodology, and a fundamental and inescapable policy bias of the study participants [NRRI is an advocacy operation, not a "pure science" lab]. The argument is to say we went through a ton of cash doing our flawed and doubtful study - efficient use of funds arguably not being as great an issue as our reaching a favorable result in terms of what we want to be doing from page one of our existence, onward.

Indeed a large part if not the lion's share of overall project funding went to Tinklenberg Group and to clear NRRI-internal marketing effort, not to NRRI doing good science. Nonetheless, the argument goes, despite all that, we have our crappy little study on the table, so if you want to stop us then YOU HAVE TO DEFINITIVELY PROVE US WRONG.

The world should not be cast into that false perspective when cancer risk is the worry - and there is only some industry-favorable advocacy body lodged in a branch campus saying, we've one flawed study so now you have to spend a ton of cash to prove its inadequacy.

There should be some more compelling threshold imposed on NRRI-Tinklenberg than that.

For example - If there's evidence and extensive 1970's litigation that taconite tailings are a risk and it was a clearly enjoinable health threat to put "Mesabi Hard Rock" into Lake Superior because it contaminates drinking water, then if you want to spread the stuff outside of its mining waste-pile locale you must definitively prove that using it all over creation is NOT a comparable threat to the Lake Superior contamination scenario, and you must do so before you go and get into promoting it with vigor for paving purposes and trying to arrange massive bulk shipping ways-and-means to facilitate questionable commerce on a massive and scary scale.

Elwyn Tinklenberg did the opposite. He is now using the "Marlboro Man's" rhetoric as a fig leaf to hide behind for his questionable conduct. Plain and simple. The Marlboro Man is now out of the saddle even while that debate continues.

Big Cigarette's cancer threat has been largely lessened, and Elwyn's Big Steel cancer threat should be next in line.



That branding and sloganing, it is as fit for Mesabi Hard Rock as Marlboro. The "Come to where the flavor is. Come to Marlboro Country." That could be used, except the flavor of mill waste probably is dry and gritty. "Come to where the Cancer is. Come to Mesabi Country," that's usable but probably counterproductive to the Tinklenberg goal of moving it out of Oberstar's district by the trainload - shipload. In a way it's funny, the smaller slogan, "You get a lot to like with a Marlboro - filter, flavor, pack or box," in designing that Mesabi Hard Rock brochure, the NRRI-Tinklenberg consortium missed the opportunity for a killer slogan - "You get a lot to like with a Hard Rock, train load, boat load, trucked or boxed."

You tell me -- Is the man running for election in Minnesota's Sixth District, or to be the Hard Rock Rep. from Marlboro Country?