Timeline of John Hoff Oklahoma Law License Application and Results

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Hoff Says He Is Living in Poverty to Support Motion to Proceed In forma Pauperis but Denied by Oklahoma Supreme Court

On November 14, 2014, John Hoff AKA Johnny Northside appeared before the Clerk for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. 
Hoff was there because, he didn't agree with the ruling by the Oklahoma Board of  Bar Examiners to deny his application to practice law in Oklahoma as a member of the Bar. Click here to read the findings of fact, conclusions of law based on the 2-day hearing held August 14-15, 2014 in Oklahoma City

The problem Hoff faced with appealing his application being denied involved money... Something Hoff has never really had any of. However, he sure does OWE a LOT of it (more on that in a future post)!
According to the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, under Rule 11...
Section 8. (a) An applicant whose application is denied by the Board of Bar Examiners following a Rule Eleven hearing, may appeal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by filing twelve (12) copies of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Board. The Notice of Appeal and cost bond shall be filed by the applicant with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days after the Board's written decision was mailed to the applicant or his/her counsel. The Notice of Appeal shall set forth the basis for the appeal. Any findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the Board in connection with the Rule Eleven hearing shall be attached to the Notice of Appeal. 
(b) At the same time the Notice of Appeal is filed, the applicant shall also file a good and sufficient cost bond to be approved by the Clerk of the Supreme Court in an amount sufficient to defray the costs of the appeal, including the Rule Eleven hearing transcript.
In other words, in order for Hoff's appeal to be heard by the supreme court, he would have to cover the cost of the bond that would include the transcript from the Rule 11 hearing. For Hoff to appeal his case properly,he would have to come up with a significant amount of money. It was estimated that the amount of money Hoff would have had to pay was in the range of $5,000.
John didn't have that much money so, he pulled out one of his old, reliable tricks that he has used in most of his previous court cases.... To ask the court for permission for him to proceed "Informa Pauperis"
For those not familiar with that term, it more or less means the person filing the case does not have the money to cover the required costs and if the court approves the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the cost is absorbed by the court (or the taxpayers really).

Here is the Oklahoma Statute:
§ 922. Affidavit in forma pauperis
The affidavit provided for in the preceding section [FN1] shall be in the form following, and attached to the petition, viz.:State [of Oklahoma, ____________ County, ____________,] in the district court of said county: I do solemnly swear that the cause of action set forth in the petition hereto prefixed is just, and I (or we) do further swear that by reason of my (or our) poverty, I am unable to give security for costs.
Hoff claimed poverty in order to appeal his case. The irony of that is that one of the reasons Oklahoma denied Hoff's application to practice law was that the Board of Bar Examiners determined that Hoff lived in poverty on PURPOSE!
The following from the findings of fact conclusions of law from Hoff's denial... (click below to view larger)

John Hoff was proven to be opposite of so many things that he has long claimed to be on his blog and among his supporters is former Minneapolis city council member and current Minneapolis Public School Board member, Don Samuels. In fact, Samuels submitted a letter of support to the board on Hoff's behalf but, he did not appear as a witness for Hoff at his Rule 11 hearing.
A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hoff's denial will be sent to Samuels to review and I will follow up after that seeking a comment on his decision to support Hoff as he has in the past.

Hoff will not be a lawyer anywhere anytime soon and Hoff has only himself to blame.


Anonymous said...

Very typical John Hoff behavior. Always wants to have things two ways. Always talks out of both sides of his mouth as well as talking out of his ass. Nice to see that Oklahoma wasn't impressed with his vantriloquist act. Staying poor to avoid child support, undoubtedly.

Anonymous said...

yet another person of interesting dealings Don Samuels backs. Might be a good idea to send the unbiased johnny northside's free advertising of Mr. Samuels on his website for his school board election to the board. We were wondering why he blocked negative, but true posts about how Mr. Samuels conducts business in this city.

DT said...

Here is the motion John Hoff sent to the OK Supreme Court where he states he's too poor to pay the fees as required by law (all of these are public documents obtained from the court [even though Hoff tried to have the record sealed]):


COMES NOW Appellee, John W. Hoff, and hereby moves this honorable Court
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and in support thereof states as follows.
1. Title 5 O.S. Rule 11 Section 8(b) of the Rules Governing Admission to the
Practice of Law in the State of Oklahoma is the specific authority controlling the costs of
appealing an application denied by the Board of Bar Examiners. "At the same time the
Notice of Appeal is filed, the applicant shall also file a good and sufficient cost bond to
be approved by the Clerk of the Supreme Court in an amount sufficient to defray the
costs of the appeal, including the Rule Eleven hearing transcript."
2. However, Title 5 O.S. Rule 11 Section 8(d) of the Rules Governing
Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of Oklahoma provides, "Once filed with the
Clerk of the Supreme Court, the appeal shall be subject to the rules of the Supreme Court
of the State of Oklahoma."
3. In turn, Title 20 O.S. § 15 governs deposits to cover costs in proceedings
before the Supreme Court, including cases filed by Indigents.
Page I of I
"In each case filed in the Supreme COUli and in each application seeking
reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and at the time of filing
same, there shall be deposited with the Clerk as costs in said cause Two
Hundred Dollars ($200.00) of which no rebate of any part thereof shall be
made; provided, the Supreme Court may prescribe by rules the procedure
for affording access to that COUli, without the deposit of costs, to those
indigent persons who are deemed by it entitled thereto."
(Emphasis added.)
4. Appellant finds no rules prescribing the procedure by which the Supreme
Court may deem indigent persons appealing an application denied by the Board of Bar
Examiners entitled access to that Court and afforded access thereto. This may be a case of
first impression before the COURT.
5. On or about November 3, 2014 Patrick Kernan, the attorney for the
Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners, advised Appellant, "The cost of your appeal bond
will be approximately $5,950.00 + exhibit reproduction expense."
6. Appellant has filed his AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, as prescribed by 12 O.S. Rule 1.301, Form No.4.
7. It was well-established in the Board of Bar Examiners Rule II hearing at
issue in this appeal that Appellant has financial difficulties. Indeed, Appellant's history of
unemployment/underemployment and financial delinquency were among the character
and fitness issues upon which the Board denied his application.
8. Appellant's employment is currently limited to service in the Oklahoma
Army National Guard. He is without full time employment.
9. Appellant is a veteran of Afghanistan. He has sought aid through the
Oklahoma Bar Association Oklahoma Lawyers for America's Heroes program. He is
awaiting a response.
Page 2 of 2
10. Appellant is unable to pay the $200.00 filing fee, much less $5,950.00 or
more in additional costs, within the 30 days afforded to file his notice of appeal.
II. Title 20 O.S. § 15 affords indigents access to the Oklahoma Supreme
Comi. This access extends to attorneys seeking reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar
Association. Appellant prays that this Court afford the same access to an applicant who
has not previously been admitted to the bar.
WHEREFORE Appellant prays for relief as set forth with specificity herein, and
for such other and fmiher relief as this Court may deem fair and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,

sf John W. Hoff
John W. Hoff
2226 Bryant Ave. N.
Minneapolis, MN 55411
Telephone (952) 465-2857
Facsimile: None
Email: hoffjohnw@gmail.com
Appellant pro se, in forma pauperis

DT said...

And here is how the Oklahoma Bar responded:

In In re Evinger, 1979 OK 127, 604 P.2d. 844 (1979), Johnny Lee Evinger was an
applicant for admission to the Oklahoma Bar Association. The OBBE denied his application.
He filed with this Court an application to proceed Forma Pauperis. In denying his application,
this Court stated:
The sole question reached in this matter is the respondent's right to prooceed with
an appeal from the acts and orders of the Special Board of Bar Examiners of the
Oklahoma Bar Association by affidavit forma pauperis. We decide that no right
to proceed forma pauperis exists in the Respondent. [emphasis added]
... We deny that the Oklahoma Bar Association, acting through a legally
constituted board thereof and under the direction and control of this Court must
furnish the Respondent a transcript of proceedings, cost of appeal including cost
bond or an attorney to represent him at trial or an appeal, simply because of his
indigency or poverty. [emphasis added]
Proceeding in disciplinary matters or matters relating to admission to the Bar arc
not strictly speaking civil or criminal. .. We think these cases are ill-advised in
this particular conclusion and would adopt the classification that Bar proceedings
including admission, disbarment or other types of disciplinary action are special
in nature and sui generis. [citations omitted and emphasis added]
We observed in State ex rei. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Trower, 381 P.2d 142,
144 (Okla. 1963):
"Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A fair
private and professional character is one of them. Compliance with that
condition is essential at the moment of admission; but it is equally
essential afterwards." Citing In re Bond, 168 Okl. 161,31 P.2d 921

DT said...

The ultimate purpose in disciplining attorneys or denial of admission is not
punishment, but purification of the Bar and protection of courts and public in
general. State ex ref. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Trower, supra, is also the
source of our observation that, "it is not for the sake of the individual member. ..
that men and women are licensed to engage in the practice of law.
The rationale of the prohibition against invidious discrimination in basic human,
civil and criminal rights for protection of the poor, and the guarantee of a fair,
speedy and thorough judicial proceeding has no carryover into Bar members of
this kind.
We therefore hold respondent is not entitled to be furnished at bar expense a
transcript or record of the trial proceedings nor is he entitled to a waiver of the
necessity for cost bond under Rule 11, 5 O.S.Supp 1978 Ch. 1, App. 5. [emphasis
It should be noted that 20 O.S. §15, relied upon by the Petitioner to support his forma
pauperis application made to this Court, was in full force and effect at the time In re Evinger was
decided in 1979. I
In the event this COUli decides that forma pauperis may be available to MI'. Hoff to
effectively transfer the cost of providing a record (full transcript of the Rule 11 hearing with
exhibits introduced) to the OBBE notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 11, Sections 5 & 8, and
the holding in In re Evinger, supra, the record in this case does not support the accuracy and
truthfulness of MI'. Hoffs motion and affidavit. For example, attached as Exhibit B is Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Modification Order issued by Judge Mary H.C. Flynn dated
filed July 14,2010 in Dakato County Mimlesota,z Paragraph 27, page 3 provides as follows:
27. The Defendant [Applicant] is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed
and child support shall be based on a determination of potential income. The
Defendant has, at a bare minimum, the ability to earn $7.25 per hour and work
full-time. The Defendant has potential income of$I,256.00 per month. [emphasis
Further, paragraph 29 of the Order found that Ml'. Hoff was not physically or mentally
incapacitated. 3
In addition, paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
decided by the OBBE on October 17,2014 made factual findings that (1) Applicant failed to
report all of his income to the IRS, (2) has made little or no effort to become gainfully employed,
(3) attempted to avoid child support obligations, and, (4) has voluntarily chosen to spend a
substantial portion of his time available for work to his 'blogging' activities, for little or no
These factual findings render Mr. Hoff ineligible to file in forma pauperis. This Court has
long recognized that an individual who has voluntarily deprived himself of the means to pay his
court costs may not claim the benefits of filing in forma pauperis:
Such is the benevolence of the law that a pauper, even, cannot for want of funds
be deprived of the same review of the proceedings against him in the court of last
resort as is accorded his more fortunate neighbor. . '.' But this does not mean that
one who voluntarily makes of himself a pauper, and thereby purposely deprives
himself of the means necessary to meet the expenses of his defense, can avail
himself of this gratuity. Doing so subsequent to formal accusation is indicative of
bad faith, and, when unexplained, is evidence of the fraudulent purpose of
avoiding his own proper expenses by saddling them on the county.
Wainwright v. State, 149 P. 914, 916 (Okla. 1915) (citation omitted) (denying informa
pauperis status to plaintiff).
WHEREFORE, the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners respectfully requests this Court to
order the dismissal of the appeal of John W. Hoff.

Patrick H. Kernan,

Please excuse the errors created when the document was OCR'd

Anonymous said...

DT...that was awesome! So since your such a die hard...here's a little reward 4 you: true story-John went to the theatre with and threw a hissy @ the p.y.t who didn't initially fill his popcorn full enough. He complains and scolds until she is in tears. John doesn't notice strapping young usher looking on...the indignant rage of chivalry silently pounding in his temples. He doesn't say anything cuz of managers present. A month later John gets in some stupid arguement with some dude @ a bar, a bouncer talking to both, trying to decide which one to oust when bouncers best freind, the usher from before, rushes over and points at John. 'That guy there is a FUCKING ASSHOLE!' he says. Bouncer throws John out...who insists on finishing his drink first. I still wonder if it was one of those bars with free popcorn. Again-true story so Jim please post for our good freind DT.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

John WillardHoffisavictimofhimself

Anonymous said...

John Hoff likes to take advantage of places that give free food to veterans. He's such a cheap asshole.

D said...

Hoff still uses his blog to hurt and harm people. Turnaround is payback:


Article comment left on the JNS blog that the douchebag will never approve:

This article is more documentation to support the factual statement that you will never ever have a law license in any state in the USA.
This blog is an everlasting testament to your lack of fitness to be granted a law license.
I have personally sent a copy of your denial to the ABA, and every bar association in all 50 states that I could find an address for.
Thanks to "Google" this blog will be archived and forever be used as evidence against your fitness to be a lawyer.
Just like you post the jail roster to destroy peoples lives, this blog will destroy yours.
You made the bed, you sleep in it forever.