The Wind Blows Free- Or Does it?

 

This week political interests in North Dakota (the sixth windiest state in the nation) voted to move forward with a bill that would place a 2 year moratorium on wind development and permitting.  In an era of scientific proof on climate change and global warming, suddenly the clean choice is apparently “bad for business”.

Republican Sen. Dwight Cook of Mandan introduced Senate Bill 2314 to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, where it passed on a 4-3 margin. The bill seeks to prevent the Public Service Commission from approving any application for a wind farm that’s submitted in the two years after Aug. 1, 2017. This bill is “intended to guarantee that North Dakota has a reliable and affordable source of electricity in the future” and to “save coal.” Cook argued the bill is not an attack on any one industry, but that lawmakers should find out what effect additional wind energy projects will have.

While we can’t speak to Senator Cooks thought process, we can look at his motivations. It is hardly a coincidence that this bill is introduced at the same time Republican interests have gained control of power and Donald Trump has mandated that fossil solutions be given the focus of United States development. The threat extends to the Paris Agreement, a universally acclaimed energy and climate accord signed by 132 countries to date.

This article and this site is not about politics. We are not here to discuss or attempt to convince people on political agenda. That said, we will discuss common sense and what is right or wrong with policies and players in charge of instituting change in the United States. This is 2017. The United states lags behind the rest of the civilized world in many areas, but perhaps most notably in recognizing climate change.

This week, Cook attempted to make the case that wind (and other “clean” energy sources) are somehow being wrongfully subsidized by the federal government to the detriment of the coal and oil industries. A federal government that also recently agreed to stop the approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline until environmental studies and negotiations with Native American  could be completed and resolved.

We could speak to the conflict of interest involving Donald Trump with Big Oil and fossil solutions, but that point has been well made elsewhere. The issue as we see it is the lack of common sense and pragmatic behavior from constituents and elected officials at the local and state level. Senator Cook claims to have the best interests of North Dakota in mind but how is it better or “more reliable” for ND citizens to shun renewable energy in favor of environmentally damaging, finite resources? Are we to believe that it’s best to mine/ burn/ emit every fossil source of energy before it becomes feasible to change?

The number of jobs affected by wind and environmental sources will far out-strip lost jobs as coal fueled power stations die the death of the fossils that bore them. Change is constant and smart businesses see the future. We would ask where is the foresight of the current administration (and the trickle-down ideology) who back fossil/ emission solutions?

Our environment and our very future should not be relegated to a political dispute, nor should it come down to corporate greed. When those two paths cross, it’s time to step up and force change. Common sense screams out that we develop (and subsidize) clean energy sources over fossil solutions. On a macro scale, the US should be leading the way with alternative energy methods, not fighting or withdrawing from the discussion. While drilling in the North Shelf of Alaska may be a boon to a select few investors, it is not the best plan moving forward. Fast-tracking oil pipelines and encouraging fracking is also not a long-term solution.

This is about jobs and accountability. Elected officials have constituents to answer to, of course. My question to Senator Cook would be two-fold: How is coal or oil fueled electricity ‘more reliable” when it is a finite resource? How are newly created jobs “better” if they are in the coal/ oil industry instead of the wind or solar industries?

 

 

In the case of Brendan Dassey…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On February 14th, 2017 the 7th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (COA) assigned a three judge panel to decide the latest appeal in the case of Brendan Dassey.  Judge Ilana D. RovnerJudge Ann C. Williams, and Judge David F. Hamilton were selected at random from the available 7th Circuit pool. Judge Rovner presides over the panel and will assign who writes the court’s opinion in this case. Below is the full audio of that 9:30AM hearing at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, located at 219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 2722 in Chicago, IL.

The 7th Circuit hears arguments from Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. This is the second highest judiciary in the country, with only the Supreme Court of the United States higher. Having a Habeas Corpus case heard at this level would be a highlight in any attorney’s career. In this instance we find Laura Nirider of Bluhm Legal Clinic Center for Wrongful Convictions advocating for Brendan Dassey and Luke N Berg, Wisconsin AAG, Special Litigation and Appeals Unit appealing on behalf of the state.

The Dassey case has garnered worldwide attention in the past year since the release of the Netflix documentary Making A Murderer. A brief history of the case can be found in the US District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin decision handed down by US Magistrate William E. Duffin in the Fall of 2016.

We attended oral arguments this past Wednesday in Chicago and have since heard the audio of the day’s events multiple times. Social Media has been rife with speculation since these three judges grilled attorneys on both sides of the aisle in a 45 minute session. While it is indeed incredibly difficult to predict or speculate on the thought processes at play in Chicago this past week, human nature begs the question; what are these judges thinking?

The session opens with Judge Rovner blindsiding Berg about promises made Brendan Dassey and asking whether offers of leniency by officers Weigert and Fassbender overbore Dassey’s will. Berg recovers  and proceeds to lay claim to the states position. That position being that Dassey was only seen as a witness and not a suspect “at first”. Berg’s claims that Dassey was free to go and was not a suspect continued for much of the morning. Though not asked by the court directly, one is left to question why Dassey was mirandized if he was only a “potential witness”.

Supporters of Dassey could not have asked for a more favorable start to the proceedings, but that feeling quickly was overshadowed once Judge Hamilton chimed in. Hamilton in no uncertain terms declared that he sided with the State’s view that the Dassey confession was not coerced and he saw no wrongdoing when watching the videotaped interrogations. Judge Williams seemed to be the most neutral of the three judge panel and made comments that seemed to cut both ways.

For her part, Laura Nirider was calm and unwavering in her defense of Brendan Dassey. At times she may have stumbled slightly, but overall her narrative was on point and accurate. On the other side of the aisle, Berg continually tried to dictate to the court and it remains to be seen how the bench will react. Berg reminded the court on numerous occasions how this was “a habeas case” not a “de novo” case. Near the end of his time, Berg stated that he had one more point before he would sit down, which was met with Judge Rovner’s retort, “what if we have more questions for you”?

In the days since this pivotal hearing, both sides of the argument have looked at statements of the different judges as evidence that the court will likely rule in their favor. My initial reaction was positive, due in large part to Judge Rovner’s apparent stance and her position as chief judge. Judge Hamilton casts a dark shadow over these oral arguments to be sure, and Judge Williams seemingly is holding her cards close to the vest. It will take a 2-1 or unanimous vote to decide this possibly landmark case.

I have maintained for some time that I believe this case is headed to the Supreme Court and will be granted certiorari. The one glaring fact to emerge from Wednesday’s oral arguments is that there is no case law to establish clear precedent in this instance. It will be up to the 7th Circuit to decide if they have enough to render a decision. Whichever side prevails in the 7th Circuit will have the upper hand going forward. The SCOTUS may or may not choose to accept the case

This is the reason so much speculation swirls around these oral arguments. What if these judges took on specific roles during this highly publicized hearing with purpose? You have a 3 judge panel. One judge apparently favors each side with one impartial if we take things at face value. (I would warn against that in the strongest terms possible).

For the sake of argument, what if these judges were playing a bit of good cop/ bad cop? Would this not be a very effective way to get the lawyers off balance and to toss the script, as it were? People will continue to speculate until a decision is handed down on the state’s appeal in the Brendan Dassey case. That opinion may be months in the making. It could come tomorrow.

I am left with 2 questions following the proceedings of this past week. Is it  wise or prudent to take the questions and opinions of the 7th Circuit panel at face value? If I were a judge in one of the highest courts in the land would I so obviously let the public know what I am thinking?