Evidence That Cities and Residents Should Have the Right To Protect Themselves Against John Hoff

Word on the street is that John Hoff aka Johnny Northside is now an enlisted man in the National Guard. One can argue that it is the closest thing he has had to a real job in years. The thought of John Hoff being in the military is a scary one. The National Guard is brought in to help restore public order.
Public order. John Hoff. Is it legal to say those two things in the same sentence? John Hoff, afterall is a public menace. John Hoff claims to be an activist working on turning North Minneapolis into an "Urban Utopia" but, Utopia is not what Hoff has made of things he has been involved with in his past.

Remember when John was elected to the Grand Forks city council? Remember when John was recalled within a few months because of his unruly behavior? Did John accept it and go away quietly? Nope. He complained above the council while saying that they held a meeting that was not legal. Here is the response he got...

On June 23, 2000, this office received a request for an opinion under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 from John Hoff asking whether the Grand Forks City Council violated N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-19, 44-04-19.2, and 44-04-20 by holding an executive session which was not authorized by law or sufficiently identified in the notice of the meeting and by failing to sufficiently announce the topics and legal authority for holding the executive session.

John Hoff does things that get him in trouble. No matter how minor it is like, say a citation for SITTING ON A SIDEWALK! John took it to trial and lost. He appealed and then took it to the Washington State Court of Appeals before losing again. The actual document is pages and pages long so I have cut out the fat and copied the jist of it. You can click the link to read the entire document.

The CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, v. John HOFF, Appellant.
June 02, 1997

John Hoff, an advocate for Seattle's homeless, were cited under the “Seattle sitting ordinance,” SMC 15.48.040, for sitting on the sidewalk in the University District.   They challenge the ordinance on several state constitutional grounds.

Hoff argues that the officers violated Washington's ban on discrimination against persons with disabilities when they cited him.

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 two cases were joined for appeal.


1) Hoff and McConahy first contend that the sitting ordinance violates their substantive due process rights under the Washington State Constitution.   They argue that it violates art.   I, § 1, because it is an unreasonable exercise of police power which infringes upon their individual liberties.


2) Hoff and McConahy contend that this section prohibits governments from enacting legislation which detracts from individual liberties.   They argue that this section embodies the fundamental predicate underlying the Washington Constitution protecting individual liberties, and the Seattle ordinance violates it.   But they cite no authority for the proposition that art.


3) They also argue that the ordinance violates their fundamental right to “move about or stand still.”


4) Appellants argue that because the Washington Constitution provides greater protection to individual rights than does the federal constitution, we should apply a correspondingly more protective analysis when considering legislation which impacts these liberties.


5) Hoff and McConahy argue that, despite the City's valid interests, their interest in being left alone while they are engaged in essentially innocent activity outweighs those the ordinance is designed to protect.


6) Hoff and McConahy argue that the ordinance does not appreciably further the City's interests because it could have relied upon the pedestrian interference ordinance 3 to address the problems associated with people sitting on the sidewalk


7) Hoff and McConahy next contend that the ordinance impermissibly burdens their right to free expression under art. I, § 5 of the Washington State Constitution


8) Hoff argues that he was engaged in expressive conduct because he was handing out leaflets announcing a protest against the ordinance.   The trial court found otherwise.   It acknowledged that he had leaflets in his lap but found that he was not trying to distribute them.   Rather, he was leaning against a building reading a book.


9) Hoff argues that sitting was essential to his protest against the sitting ordinance and that he could more effectively leaflet from a supplicant position.

10) Hoff and McConahy argue that the ordinance is  unconstitutionally overbroad because it restricts more expression than needed to achieve its legislative purpose

11) Hoff's and McConahy's next contention is that the ordinance disparately effects poor or homeless and violates the state Privileges and Immunities Clause.4  They argue that the ordinance disproportionately effects the homeless and poor because they cannot afford to patronize commercial establishments or have a home to go to and are therefore more likely to have to sit on the sidewalk


12) Hoff finally contends that the officers violated RCW 49.60.030, Washington's ban on discrimination against persons with disabilities, when they cited him for sitting.   He claims that he has a disability that requires him to sit and rest periodically and often must sit on the sidewalk where there is no bench or park.   SMC 15.48.040 exempts persons using wheelchairs or having a medical emergency.   Hoff counters that his disability is not so severe that he must use a wheelchair or that it qualifies as a medical emergency, but that it nonetheless requires him to sit.

While Hoff did testify that his injury requires him to sit and rest, several officers also testified that he walked to the store for a soda and that he was able to get up and approach the police officers numerous times.   Further, there is no evidence that the City ticketed him because he had a disability.   Rather, there is ample evidence that officers ticketed him because he persisted in sitting on the sidewalk after they warned him that he was violating the ordinance.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gCfsPRa_OHUJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1468224.html+%22john+hoff%22+%22disability%22&cd=37&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
John likes to take things to court that suit him. Take a look at what he said online about how he thinks he can achieve his Urban Utopia... (you may need to click on the pic to see all of it)

Here is part of an article John posted online in 2006...

Military not “scraping bottom of the barrel”
http://www.bloggernews.net/1219
Posted on October 7th, 2006
by John Hoff in All News

I’m a disabled vet, rated at 30% for an injury I received while working as an Army medic. One of my legs is now half an inch shorter then the other, except when it pops, painfully, out of my hip. For this, I receive $364 a month, though something like $26 of that is because I have one dependent, my nine-year-old son.


I’d love to get back into the army, reserves, or national guard. To get back in, I’d need waivers because I’m not physically fit and, to some degree, not capable of becoming physically fit. There are some things that, due to my service-connected disability, I will never be able to do.


However, if I were to go back into the military, I’d have to give up my $364 a month.
_____________________________________
By John Hoff U.S. Army veteran

Tue, Nov. 11, 2003,

Grand Forks Herald

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0311nn/031111nn.htm
I left the military in the spring of 1994 with my left leg permanently and seriously injured restraining a violent patient who was probably loaded up on PCP. So I ran to enlist in the Army, but I limped out.

He limped out? He limped all the way to crawl up the Governments ass until they gave him some money. I assume it was to shut him up. AHAHAHAHA Right! Like that will ever happen!