Can you believe Commerce EERA would file this?

lucy-surprised

14-21_DOC-EERA_Letter_to_ALJ_with_Affidavit_of_Warner

laughinghorse

FULL DISCLOSURE & CLARIFICATION:  THIS IS NOT ABOUT MINNESOTA POWER, THIS IS NOT ABOUT MANITOBA HYDRO.  THIS IS ABOUT THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

Here’s the recap:

The most recent Dept. of Commerce EERA letter…

14-21_DOC-EERA_Letter_to_ALJ_with_Affidavit_of_Warner)

… was sent in response to the Administrative Law Judge’s letter directing them to follow through on her request for an Affidavit from the person who mailed the landowners notice, those “ADDITIONAL new landowners” who were supposedly sent notice prior to the one that was sent in July.

From the top:

  • Notice sent out to some landowners on February 9, 2015, and to some on July 27, 2015, evidenced by filing in eDockets:
20157-112741-01 PUBLIC 14-21 TL DOC EERA OTHER–NEWLY AFFECTED LANDOWNER NOTICE 07/27/2015
  • I discovered this eFiled document and contacted Sharon Ferguson about the mailing of the 27th of July, and after reviewing the document, she said that yes, she served that last page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” on July 27, 2015, and that the others had been served earlier, on February 9, 2015.  I went over it twice to be clear, to make sure I understood it correctly.
  • Upon learning that the one page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” got their first notice on July 27, 2015, I filed for RRANT (Intervenor in Certificate of Need docket) to intervene in this routing docket: RRANT_Motion to Intervene Out of Time.
  • At the hearing the following day, I entered the last two pages of the Notice, the “24 landowners” list and the July 27, 2015 Certificate of Service as Exhibit 280.  Pages 18-19 from 7272015_Notice_p18_20157-112741-01
  • At the hearing, I was told by Asst. A.G. Jensen that this was just a clerical error, that Sharon Ferguson was handed a big pile of landowner lists that had previously been served and instructed to file them on eDockets (see above, eDocket filing 20157-112741-01 ), and for some unknown reason she also filed a Certificate of Service dated July 27, 2015, in addition to the one dated February 9, 2015, that was in the eDocket filing with the letter and landowner lists.
  • During the hearing, Bill Storm stated (was he under oath?)(from DRAFT Transcript (selected)_8-13-2015) (note that only Sharon Ferguson is mentioned):

BillStorm1

BillStorm2

BillStorm3

Speculative hearsay…  Then Asst. A.G. Linda Jensen went on to state:

Jensen1

Then Judge O’Reilly asks, to clarify:

OReilly1

“Correct.”  Uh-huh… and more clarification:

OReilly2

But Exhibit 113 does not equal 20157-112741-01Exhibit 113 is missing the last page of what was filed on eDockets.  And yet Exhibit 113 was entered after July 27, 2015… and it was entered into the record with certain representations… (when that transcript comes out, I’ll post that snippet.).

And the wrap-up:

OReilly3

OReilly4

ManureSpreader

And now, the kicker:

OReilly5

And from Mr. Storm:

BillStorm4

Nope, doesn’t seem that he can!  What Commerce EERA produces is an Affidavit from Bill Storm, not Sharon Ferguson, with more and different speculative hearsay, and this time it’s not about Sharon Ferguson, but now it’s about a new character, “Caren Warner,” who supposedly sent that one page of “ADDITIONAL new landowners” notice that their land may be affected…

Letter  Brief & Attachments_20158-113390-01

EH?  There’s still no Affidavit of Sharon Ferguson!  What happened to the Affidavit from Sharon Ferguson?  The story now is different than it was at the hearing, as reflected in the transcript, and now there’s a new character!  Caren Warner!  And no Affidavit of Caren Warner!

BillStorm4

laughinghorse

Next the Administrative Law Judge fired this off:

Letter from ALJ O’Reilly to DOC Asst. A.G. Jensen_20158-113402-01

… in pertinent part:

Letter

So what did Commerce produce this time?  Check it out:

14-21_DOC-EERA_Letter_to_ALJ_with_Affidavit_of_Warner

lucy-surprised

Ms. Warner has no memory of that day:

Warner

Sounds like the Rose Mary Woods School of Clerical Endeavors:

rose-mary-woods

Looks to me that the logical presumption is that those 24 “ADDITIONAL new landowners” were not served on February 9, 2015.

Do the Rose Mary!!!  On a count of four, the backwards-leaning stretch reach, and forward for a count of 4.  Ready, 1, 2, 3, 4,  BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3 4, BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3 4, BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3 4, BACKwards-leaning STRETCH REACH, forward 2 3  vamp, 1, 2, 3, 4, hold that RRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACH!  18.5 minutes… HOLD…. HOLD… HOLD…. HOLD… 18.5 minutes… HOLD…. HOLD… HOLD…. HOLD… 18.5 minutes… HOLD…. HOLD… HOLD…. HOLD…

BillStorm4

1 Comment

Filed under 7850, Hearings, PUC Filings, Routing Docket

One Response to Can you believe Commerce EERA would file this?

  1. Pingback: Legalectric » Blog Archive » Notice? For utility infrastructure?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.