The Minnesota Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in SaveWCAL's Appeal of its Petition To Redress Breach Of Trust on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. in Courtroom 300 of the Minnesota Judicial Center — located next to the State Capitol building in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The hearing will last approximately one hour.
The public is encouraged to attend. No tape recorders or cameras are allowed in the courtroom. Overcoats are to be removed. Please be aware that the court has directed the attorneys to be present one-half hour early in case a previous case settles. Therefore, you may want to arrive early to make sure that you do not miss the hearing, which could begin earlier than scheduled.
NOTE: There is a significant difference between oral arguments in a trial court and in an appellate court. In a trial court the oral argument is often a set piece with the judge asking few, if any, questions. The reverse is true in an appellate court. There may be numerous questions from the bench, and the exchanges between the attorneys and the judges are the most important part.
The case has been assigned to Judges Francis J. Connolly, Michelle Ann Larkin and Heidi S. Schellhas.
SaveWCAL has received notice that Ann Bloodhart, Assistant Attorney General and Charities Division Manager –who has been the lead attorney for the Attorney General in this matter — will apparently not participate in the hearing. The AG will be represented by Shannon Harmon, Assistant Attorney General.
Excellent parking directions/instructions are available on the Minnesota State Law Library web site. Please note that the parking ramp at Regions Hospital is an alternative to the state lots, which have meters.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I've cleared my schedule and will able to hear Mike and the Cadillac attorneys from the skyscrapper firms in Room 300 on Tuesday. Many thanks for pushing forward and supporting the law.
Twitter Comment
ALERT: WCAL Appeal Hearing on Tuesday in Saint Paul | SaveWCAL [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Go get 'em!
I was at the hearing today and thought it went very well. I'm proud of Mike and his hard work, and thanked him afterwards.
I'm very glad I attended this hearing. I did not attend the Rice County hearings that led up to this, but because of both the stature and proximity of this one, felt it was important to see this one.
Thank you very much for your ongoing dedication to SaveWCAL. I'm looking forward to hearing about the decision sometime in the next 90 days,
Was a very good day today, I'd say. I hope they heard Mike in his responses. When I left the court room I looked down at the judges remaining for their next case – in particular, Justice Schellhas, and she was watching everyone leave the courtroom. I hope she was impressed by the numbers of our group. Most of the observers left at the conclusion of this case.
University of Minnesota professor William Gleason was at the hearing yesterday and has post comments about the oral argument in the Court of Appeals, including a link to the performance of Simple Gifts on Inauguration Day on his blog, The Periodic Table.
Hmm…
The link doesn't seem to work? Try this:
http://ptable.blogspot.com/2009/10/tis-gift-to-be-simple-i-dont-often-have.html
Best to all,
Bill Gleason
The courtroom was packed. A late arriving SaveWCAL supporter found one of the last places available next to MPR's Tom Kigin. When asked, he identified himself as an MPR supporter and said it was a "mixed group" in the courtroom. While it was true that there were a few people there who seemed to have a clear relationship to the St. Olaf and MPR attorneys (legal/administrative assistants?), the majority of the folks in that room were SaveWCAL supporters. Well done, SaveWCAL!
Per the Strib article today,:
"St. Olaf agrees that if a donor gives money for a specific purpose, such as building a radio tower, it must – and did – use the gift for that purpose."
My question: what good is a radio tower if there's no radio station and building to use that tower? How is a tower-specific donation different from a radio station-specific donation? Or to build the WCAL building? Makes no sense.
I was there. The judges had done their homework. The attorneys for St. Olaf, MPR and the AG did their organizations no favors. Let's hope Mr. McNabb's excellent presentation carries the day!
I attended the State Court of Appeals hearing on October 27 and need to comment on reporter Jenna Ross' short StarTribune article. The limited scope of her report may have left some readers with the impression that SaveWCAL and its counsel are a tad Quixiotic. Ms. Ross did not refer to or draw upon the written arguments submitted to the court before hand by SaveWCAL's counsel Michael McNabb or the lawyers representing MPR, St. Olaf College and the State Attorney General. Because of this website, I was able to read the court documents before the hearing just like the judges and the attorneys. SaveWCAL's arguments that the sale of the college radio station to MPR was illegal ARE securely grounded in charitable trust law and findings of fact.