Nephew v. Highland Sanitation et al.
Last week I filed a campaign practices complaint against Bob Cardinal, Highland Sanitation, and Highland's owners, alleging false campaign material and illegal corporate campaign contributions (in Highland's case, making the contributions; in Cardinal's case, knowingly accepting the contributions and aiding/abetting Highland in making them).
You can download and read my original complaint (6.3 MB PDF).
This week, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to review the complaint found that it did set forth prima facie violations of Minnesota Statutes ยง 211B.06 (for two false statements I identified in the letter from Highland), 211B.13, and 211B.15. The next step, a probable cause hearing, has been scheduled for Monday afternoon.
You can download and read my original complaint (6.3 MB PDF).
This week, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to review the complaint found that it did set forth prima facie violations of Minnesota Statutes ยง 211B.06 (for two false statements I identified in the letter from Highland), 211B.13, and 211B.15. The next step, a probable cause hearing, has been scheduled for Monday afternoon.
Labels: Bob Cardinal, campaign 2011
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Posted by
K Solutions LLC |
10/17/2011 10:28:00 AM
At a reader's request, I have removed the above comment, due to its language. Since I can't edit comments, only remove them, here is the original comment, sanitized (as it were) with the vulgarity deleted:
***
Posted by Blogger K Solutions LLC | 10/17/2011 10:28:00 AM
I skimmed the complaint and there are a lot of assumptions being made.
What you forgot to mention in your statement is that the burden of proof is on the person who files the complaint.
You imply that the candidate had knowledge that his literature was being distributed by this company. Where is the proof? I probably could call up this candidate, ask for a stack of literature, and I could start stuffing them in Cub Foods ads at the Maplewood location. Is the candidate responsible? No. Is the candidate working in concert with Cub Foods in the scenario I described? No. A lot being implied, but not a lot of evidence.
I think the complaint falls into the category of, if you throw enough **** at a wall, eventually a piece or two might stick.
Posted by
John Nephew |
10/21/2011 11:45:00 AM
Post a Comment