In recent weeks, I have been approached by several people who have expressed an interest in becoming a regular contributor to this blog. Alexander David and I have exchanged many emails and the information about John Hoff that he has compiled, along with a strong desire to share it.... Well, I just want to be the first to say to Alexander, "Welcome to the team!"
In the coming months, this blog will be welcoming several more contributors and I can't wait!
I have the honor of publishing Alexander David's first John Hoff related article! We are happy to have you!
Enjoy!
Post by Alexander David
So I’m sure that everyone knows that Minneapolis blogger John W. Hoff was slapped with a $60,000 judgment by a jury for his harassment and infliction of emotional distress on Jerry Moore, who lost his job at the University of Minnesota due to John Hoff’s “working behind the scenes” to force the UofM to fire Moore. Actually, what Hoff did was to “blackmail” the UofM by communicating to them that if they did not fire Moore, he would use his blog to start a negative publicity campaign.
The Fourth Judicial District court judge, Denise Reilly, affirmed the jury verdict after Hoff filed a motion to overturn the verdict. In her ruling she basically stated that Hoff’s actions “behind the scenes” were cause to uphold the verdict. Or in other words, this case is really not a 1st amendment issue; it’s not about what Hoff published in his blog.
Since Judge Reilly’s ruling Hoff has been making all sorts of big talk in his blog about all of his supporters that are going to file “amicus briefs” to support him.
One commenter to Hoff’s “Johnny Northside” blog challenged Hoff to publically state who all his supporters are writing, “You keep mentioning all the lawyers who are filing amicus briefs. Please tell us who is lining up to file amicus briefs for your appeal. As I hear it, after Judge Reilly's opinion, most everyone is walking away. So, please give us names of people and names of organizations that have signed on to file amicus briefs to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on your behalf.”
John Hoff posted a response that is more ridiculous than he claims the question was, “You are being ridiculous. Like I would ever just HAND you that information before it becomes public and give you a tactical advantage.” This response is absolute nonsense and I’ll explain why. But first readers need to know that John Hoff has a law degree, and he knows the process for filing an amicus brief.
In Minnesota, to submit a "friend of the Court brief" known as a brief of amicus curiae, you are required to submit a motion to the Court of Appeals, asking for permission to participate in the case. That motion must be copied to all parties involved, and are public. And those motions must be submitted early on so the COA can approve or deny them based on "why" they want to participate. Or in other words, the COA doesn't want several "friends" submitting briefs on the same point, creating an unnecessary duplication of arguments.
So the reality is that Hoff would not be providing a tactical advantage to anyone by stating who his supporters are, because anyone wanting to submit an amicus brief must announce their intentions early on in the appeals process.
Rather, I would suggest John Hoff’s refusal to provide even a clue as to who his supporters are is an admission that he really has none. As a matter of fact, I submitted a comment to his blog (that he refused to publish – more on that in a moment) telling him that I had information that the attorney who represented him at trial, Paul Godfread, had not yet agreed to represent John Hoff at his appeal. After all, Godfread was retained as a 1st amendment expert attorney by an outside organization. But now that Judge Reilly has quantified that this is not a 1st amendment issue, but about John Hoff being a first class asshole, why would he represent Hoff.
The day after I submitted that comment to Hoff about Godfread not being onboard, he published a blog article announcing that his blog was going to be “troll free”, meaning he was no longer going to publish comments that he didn’t like. And clearly he didn’t like my comment about being abandoned by his attorney. Publishing that comment would be a sign of defeat, and that is not something John Hoff could ever face.
John Hoff is clearly a narcissist, and most likely a sociopath, and when you combine those characteristics you have a very conflicted personality. Someone like that frequently lives in fantasy, and has considerable difficulty facing reality and the truth. In this case John Hoff simply cannot accept the reality that he will be on his own during this appeal. In his fantasy world he thinks he is surrounded by supporters. Yet, after the jury verdict, John Hoff contacted the National Guard and made arrangements to be transferred to a unit that was being deployed to Afghanistan where he is currently stationed. Why? Because he cannot face the jury’s truthful decision that he was wrong, nor can he face the reality that he now owes a judgment of $60,000 plus interest and costs, so he ran away to a neutral location.
And why has he made his blog “troll” free? Because he cannot face the truth, nor can he afford to let comments that state the truth become public and attack his fantasy world. So much like his retreat to Afghanistan, he has put up a wall to his blog so he can retreat into his own little blogging fantasy world where he has stopped bragging about the, “1st amendment trial of the century”, and now blogs a neutral topic about milkshakes in a Thai deli.
The reality is that big bad bully blogger John Hoff is nothing but a coward when faced with the truth. Truth is something he always runs away from. Not a good situation for a soldier fighting in Afghanistan.
