Some readers think I spend too much time looking for negative information about John Hoff a.k.a. Johnny Northside of North Minneapolis. They are right but, I continue to find cases like the one posted below where John does something stupid and rather than either learn from it or take responsibility, he sues whoever holds him to the fire and plays the "victim" and in this case, he claimed his rights were violated again. Click here for the other law suit against the city of Seattle... more-dirt-on-john-hoff-uncovered
Folks let me remind all of you that Minneapolis councilman, Don Samuels is a good friend of John's.
_______________________________
Brutal police behavior was recorded on video
Tukwila officer investigated; complaints, claims filed
Thursday, December 9, 1999
By KIMBERLY A.C. WILSON and ELAINE PORTERFIELD
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER ...
"In the claim against the city, John Hoff of Seattle is seeking unspecified damages for being gassed at least twice by police, and hit at least once by a projectile during WTO protests. Hoff also claimed violations of his state and federal rights."
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Johnny Northside Takes a Seat... To High Court!
Minneapolis City Councilman Don Samuels, may want to know what kind of ultra-liberal, nut-case he has in John Hoff and him kissing his ass all over the Internet and on his blog, The Adventures of Johnny Northside. Posted below is a copy of the court ruling in the case of the City of Seattle v. Hoff. It is just a matter of time before John gets irked at the city council and goes to court over something so stupid as the case below.
At least I don't have to worry about John Hoff of North Minneapolis, pulling a double standard on me like Don Samuels does.
_________________________
“SEATTLE SITTING ORDINANCE” UPHELD AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK -- In City of Seattle v. McConahy, City of Seattle v. Hoff, 86 Wn. App. 557 (Div. I, 1997), the Court of Appeals upholds the constitutionality of the “Seattle sitting ordinance.” Under that ordinance, it is a civil infraction for any person to sit or lie on the sidewalk in downtown Seattle and other neighborhood commercial zones between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. except in an emergency, or if he or she is in a wheelchair or on a bench or in a bus zone or patronizing a commercial establishment or attending a permitted event.
The facts in the two cases on review are described by the Court of Appeals as follows:
McConahy was cited while sitting on a street bulb with a group of friends, eating pizza, watching her friends play chess for change, and sometimes panhandling. Police officers approached the group and informed them that they were violating the ordinance. Her friends stood, but McConahy remained seated protesting the ordinance. McConahy wore an army jacket decorated with an American flag and a slogan that said, "Fuck your American dream." She also wore a button that said, "Sitting is not a crime." Hoff was cited while sitting reading a book and leaning against a building with leaflets advertising a protest against the ordinance in his lap. They had separate trials in municipal court. The Hoff court heard testimony and allowed extensive argument on his constitutional claims, and the McConahy court accepted much of this record. Both courts found that the defendants violated the ordinance and rejected their free expression and substantive due process claims.
The Court of Appeals rejects the defendants’ varied constitutional challenges to the sitting ordinance. However, the Court of Appeals warns that its ruling in this case is limited:
While we decline to invalidate the ordinance in this case, we wish to make clear what we are not deciding. First, we express no opinion about whether the ordinance is or is not good social policy. We hold only that the ordinance is constitutionally valid legislation. SMC 15.48.040 is quintessential legislative policy making, and we will not disturb the policy decisions made by legislative bodies unless they are unconstitutional or conflict with state law. We also hold that the City did not violate appellants' right to free expression because Hoff and McConahy were not involved in expressive activity when they were cited. But we do not decide whether, on different facts involving a protected activity or speech, SMC 15.48.040 would be a valid time, place, manner restriction. We also do not decide whether homeless residents could establish the requisite disparate impact to invoke the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause because these appellants have not done so.
Result: Affirmance of Seattle Municipal Court convictions for Sarah McConahy and John Hoff under sitting ordinance.
At least I don't have to worry about John Hoff of North Minneapolis, pulling a double standard on me like Don Samuels does.
_________________________
“SEATTLE SITTING ORDINANCE” UPHELD AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK -- In City of Seattle v. McConahy, City of Seattle v. Hoff, 86 Wn. App. 557 (Div. I, 1997), the Court of Appeals upholds the constitutionality of the “Seattle sitting ordinance.” Under that ordinance, it is a civil infraction for any person to sit or lie on the sidewalk in downtown Seattle and other neighborhood commercial zones between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. except in an emergency, or if he or she is in a wheelchair or on a bench or in a bus zone or patronizing a commercial establishment or attending a permitted event.
The facts in the two cases on review are described by the Court of Appeals as follows:
McConahy was cited while sitting on a street bulb with a group of friends, eating pizza, watching her friends play chess for change, and sometimes panhandling. Police officers approached the group and informed them that they were violating the ordinance. Her friends stood, but McConahy remained seated protesting the ordinance. McConahy wore an army jacket decorated with an American flag and a slogan that said, "Fuck your American dream." She also wore a button that said, "Sitting is not a crime." Hoff was cited while sitting reading a book and leaning against a building with leaflets advertising a protest against the ordinance in his lap. They had separate trials in municipal court. The Hoff court heard testimony and allowed extensive argument on his constitutional claims, and the McConahy court accepted much of this record. Both courts found that the defendants violated the ordinance and rejected their free expression and substantive due process claims.
The Court of Appeals rejects the defendants’ varied constitutional challenges to the sitting ordinance. However, the Court of Appeals warns that its ruling in this case is limited:
While we decline to invalidate the ordinance in this case, we wish to make clear what we are not deciding. First, we express no opinion about whether the ordinance is or is not good social policy. We hold only that the ordinance is constitutionally valid legislation. SMC 15.48.040 is quintessential legislative policy making, and we will not disturb the policy decisions made by legislative bodies unless they are unconstitutional or conflict with state law. We also hold that the City did not violate appellants' right to free expression because Hoff and McConahy were not involved in expressive activity when they were cited. But we do not decide whether, on different facts involving a protected activity or speech, SMC 15.48.040 would be a valid time, place, manner restriction. We also do not decide whether homeless residents could establish the requisite disparate impact to invoke the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause because these appellants have not done so.
Result: Affirmance of Seattle Municipal Court convictions for Sarah McConahy and John Hoff under sitting ordinance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)