On July 30, 2008, the Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed Mike Wigley's and Robert Jackson's claims that Orono Kids Matter violated campaign finance disclosure laws by failing to report in-kind contributions from the school district relating to the passage of the Orono School District's bond referendum on February 12, 2008. 

Specifically, the school district provided Orono Kids Matter "free" a 26-minute promotional video which Orono Kids Matter made 1,600 copies and then distributed to parents of schoolchildren.  Additionally, the school district provided mailing lists and 5 sets of mailing labels to Orono Kids Matter at a nominal charge.  Part of the complainant's claims was that the parents' names and addresses are confidential information under state law that should not be "sold" by the school district for any price.

Previously, the OAH had dismissed complainants' claims against the Orono School District for failing to report its campaign-related expenditures including publishing and mailing to all school district residents an 8-page advocacy booklet and producing a 26-minute promotional video. 

The complainants will be appealing from both of OAH's rulings to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Attorney Erick G. Kaardal responds,  "It's remarkable how resilient the Orono School District and Orono Kids Matter are to transparency about their coordinated expenditures to get the referendum passed.  All my clients have asked them to do is to detail their coordinated campaign expenditures to pass the bond referendum on February 12, 2008. They continue to refuse to do so.  OAH has decided state law doesn't require them to be transparent -- which is the opposite of good government policy.  We'll see what the Court of Appeals has to say about the OAH being right legally."

Shorewood landownder Ronald Johnson filed his petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 29, 2008.  Johnson has been pursuing his takings claims against Shorewood, Minnetonka and the local watershed district since a road berm culvert/dam was put in his drainage ditch in 1984-1985.  Johnson was successful in initial litigation forcing Shorewood to condemn the property.  However, subsequent litigation yielded Johnson $63,000 for initial flood event clean up costs, but ZERO for the taking or permanent flooding caused by the drainage ditch dam.

After receiving the state court condemnation final judgment in 2000, Johnson sought first in federal court and then in state court his federal claims that the state court final judgment violated the Just Compensation Clause's requirement that the government pay "just" -- more than ZERO -- for physical takings.   

Johnson's principal claim for review is that the Minnesota Court of Appeals violated the procedure adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in San Remo Hotel (2005) that state courts are required to simultaneoulsy review landowner's federal claims after denying state law remedies. Instead, the Minnesota Court of Appeals precluded federal review based on the 2000 state court condemnation final judgment being his one and only chance to litigate the claims.

Attorney Erick G. Kaardal explains, "The U.S. Supreme Court in San Remo Hotel indicated that landowners who believe their federal rights have been violated by a state court condemnation final judgment should bring their federal claims in state court.  Then, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the state courts shall simultaneously review the federal claims if the state court finds no post-judgment remedies under state law.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals violated the U.S.  Supreme Court's mandate by stating review of the federal claims is precluded because of the prior state court judgment -- the one the U.S. Supreme Court said could be challenged under federal law.  State courts in California, Connecticut and Texas have taken similar positions to Minnesota.  We believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should take the case to ensure consistent, equal treatment of landowners nationwide under federal law in the 50 state courts."