Showing posts with label Al Flowers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Flowers. Show all posts

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Scuttlebutt Bubbling, Gossip Circulating And Dissatisfaction Brewing With Ishmael Israel, Kind-Of, Sort-Of, But-Not-Really "Executive Director" Of NRRC...


Facebook photo used under First Amendment Fair Comment
and Criticism, blog post by John Hoff


Pictured on the right, Ishmael Israel of NRRC. (On the left, of course, Al Flowers) 

I had to swear a blood oath upon Minnesota's shield law to obtain this information from a neighborhood source, who has been very reliable, insightful and detailed in the past. But I'm still trying to make sense of the story, which is a tangle of neighborhood politics. In other words, the kind of thing only a neighborhood blog cares about for a neighborhood audience. 

If Mr. Ishmael Israel of NRRC would like to send me an email with his side of the story, I welcome his response and will publish it, within reason. 

But here's what I'm being told...

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: While Minneapolis Awaits Results Of Independent Investigation Of The Arrest Of Activist Al Flowers, His Son Alfred Delano Flowers, Junior, Makes An Appearance In The Hennepin County Jail...

2014029784FLOOD, ANTONIO.MARCUS11/2/1972NPA, LAKEVILLE, MN 55411/7/2014.23:43
2014029495FLOWERS, ALFRED.DELANO11/9/19923106 CHICAGO AV S, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 5540711/5/2014.04:29
2014026765FLOWERS, VERNELL.LAMONT10/27/19943418 SNELLING AV SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 5540610/7/2014.13:53



Minneapolis is still waiting to hear the results of an independent investigation into the arrest of well-known community activist and political candidate Al Flowers, who allegedly brawled with Minneapolis police who showed up at his door in search of a relative. 

Now information on the jail roster shows that quite recently Flowers' son and namesake, Alfred Delano Flowers, Jr., who resides at the same address as the senior Al Flowers, (3106 Chicago Ave. S.) passed through the Hennepin County jail on November 5 and 6...

Friday, August 1, 2014

FOLLOW THE MONEY! Funding For Activist Al Flowers "Community Standards Initative" (Sic) Came From Pandering State Government And Was Passed Through Minneapolis Public Schools! The School Board HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER...

Al Flowers, on left, ejected from turbulent JACC press conference, 
blog post by John Hoff

Click here to view a link to SF 1214, a state appropriations bill and  enjoy the Watergate-esque drama as we "follow the money." 

In the wake this blog commenting and trying to add, further, to an article on MinnPost hot pieces of information keep surfacing about large amounts of funding funneled to so-called initatives (sic) involving "activist" Al Flowers. 

Flowers is loud, scary and known to suddenly get physical at turbulent community meetings.  But Flowers has managed to insulate himself from the legal consequences of his actions over the years. He does this by masterfully manipulating and stirring up red hot racial politics. 

Oh, and by the strategic filing of lawsuits. 

Now Flowers says he was "beaten" by police and we urban Minnesota liberals are all expected to kowtow with political correctness and respond a certain way... 

Thursday, July 31, 2014

In Wake Of MinnPost Article About Big Minneapolis Schools Payout To Activist Al Flowers, It Should Be Noted This Isn't Even The FIRST Time It's Happened, Reportedly And Allegedly...

Creative stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

The headline in MinnPost says it all: 


School board's approval of $375,000 contract for Al Flowers-related group now drawing questions


I know this article (click here to read it) is getting read

because...


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Mainstream Media Fearfully Tip-Toe All Around The Ugly Reality Of Criminal, Civil Record Of "Activist" Al Flowers, Now Accused Of BITING Police Officer Who Came To Serve Arrest Warrant On Flowers' Daughter, JNS Blog Marches Down The Messy Trail Of Facts Other Media Fear To Tread...

Stock photo, Al Flowers in a confrontation with police during
JACC press conference, blog post by John Hoff

Al Flowers, who allegedly BIT an officer who was trying to serve an arrest warrant on Flowers' daughter, (click here for article mentioning THAT) has a long, messy legal history both criminal and civil. Interestingly, mainstream media are only mentioning PART of the history. 

About the most glaring example of "half truth" reporting was in a recent Star Tribune article, which contains the following paragraph...

Monday, July 28, 2014

JNS Blog Calls For Release Of Any And All Video, Audio, And Other Records Documenting Arrest Of Loud, Scary, Unpredictable "Activist" And Fringe Political Candidate Al Flowers...

Stock photo, Al Flowers being removed by police from yet 
another meeting, blog post by John Hoff

JNS blog continues to be amazed by how completely mainstream Minneapolis media, including the Star Tribune and WCCO, have been snookered by "activist" Al Flowers over what happened during his arrest, giving this guy far more credit and air time than his dubious story deserves. 



Hit 30 to 40 times? REALLY? 

He doesn't look like he was hit SIX times, and if I had to guess, those head injuries are the result of a..


Saturday, July 26, 2014

Fringe Mayoral Candidate Al Flowers Arrested, Jailed On Assault And Interfering With Legal Process Charges...

Photo, blog post by John Hoff

Al Flowers, pictured above at the famous and chaotic "New JACC" press conference, is sitting in jail this hour charged with assault and interfering with legal process. No bail has been set. 

Flowers ran against Minneapolis Mayor Rybak in an election where...

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Mpls Mirror Denounces Former Friends And/Or Allies, Disappears Into A Dark Hole Of Its Own Self-Created Loony Misery...


Photo by John Hoff, Al Flowers and the Mpls Mirror Lady, blog post by John Hoff

Normally, I ignore the Mpls Mirror, which is Terry Yzaguirre's attempt at blogging gloriously free of the conventional constraints of proper spelling, grammar and punctuation.

Yes, I'm quite aware the Mirror doesn't like me very much, and the feeling is mutual. So I don't comment on The Cracked Mirror or mention The Cracked Mirror except, for example, when writing about criminal charges leveled against Terry's children or the crazy lawsuits the Yzaguirre family has filed in the court with the help of troubled attorney Jill Clark.

(Want to file a CRAZY lawsuit? Get a CRAZY lawyer. Wouldn't that make a great advertisement on the back of a phonebook?)

But every now and then I do check the Mpls Mirror because, who knows? Maybe a stray nugget of info will turn up about Jill Clark and it will prove to be a lead to information when I write Part Fifty-Six Or Whatever It Is of The Madness of Jill Clark.

So at about 2 in the morning, I checked the Mirror. The latest article on the Mirror referred me to Terry's other blog, Unconventional Grandma.

Wow. Turns out I am still capable of being surprised by that category of people some of us just refer to as "The Crazies"...

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

"Shakedown Blogger" Don Allen Sought Restraining Order Against Activist Al Flowers Last Summer, ALL THE JUICY DETAILS, Plus A "Gloves Are Off" Johnny Northside Editorial About Don "Judas" Allen, My Former Co-Defendant In The Blogosphere Trial Of The Century...

Photo used under First Amendment Fair Comment and
Criticism, blog post by John Hoff

In a recent blog post about Don Allen's email sent to me in Afghanistan, in which Allen forwarded information about Minneapolis Public Schools money paid to, among others, Al Flowers, I made passing mention of a restraining order Don Allen tried to file against Al Flowers. (27-CV-11-13351, Donald WR Allen II v. Alfred Flowers) When I wrote that blog post, I didn't have all the info about the (attempted) restraining order.

Well, now I have the info...

Monday, December 10, 2012

Another Mysterious Don Allen Email, This One Sent To Me In Afghanistan, Discusses Minneapolis Public Schools Money Paid To Al Flowers...

Photo, a Mercedes truck from the 1950s still in use in Afghanistan, blog
post by John Hoff

I like to say Afghanistan was a blast.

Fortunately, I wasn't killed in the blast.

I spent 9 months and 11 days on foreign service, which is a pretty cool numerical coincidence, I think. Obviously my prolific neighborhood blogging paid the price, since free time was limited and when I did have free time, well, what would you do? Shop in an exotic foreign bazaar? Or blog about neighborhood doings literally on the other side of the planet?

But blog about this side of the planet I did, usually when my free time coincided with bad weather or the Muslim sabbath; during which times the bazaar was closed. Or one time when I was recovering from dental surgery. Anyway, I got some free time here and there, and sometimes the internet was working (sometimes it wasn't) and I'd manage to blog or check emails on my free time.

In Afghanistan. It's a small world after all.

Somehow, though, I missed an email forwarded by Don Allen about a Minneapolis Public Schools "Community Support Initiative" (CSI) which involved some of the money going to community activist Al Flowers. I was searching through old emails recently and, oh my goodness, what was that email from Don Allen about? The one dated December 1, 2011...

Monday, November 14, 2011

Juvie Legal Troubles For Al Flowers, Jr., Son Of "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers (Guess Who's His Attorney?)

Stock photo (Afghanistan) and blog post by John Hoff

Photo obtained from some Facebook profile, published for purposes of First Amendment commentary and criticism, Al Flowers is to the right

Before I jump into this story, I'd first like to discuss something taught in schools of journalism called "news values."

How do reporters know what is news? How do reporters pick the stories which appear in, for example, dead tree media? (What most people call "newspapers?")

Well, it turns out there are principals for what is news and what ain't. For example, "bizarreness" is a news value.

Danger, violence, unsafe things that happen...in short, "if it bleeds, it leads." Conflict is a news value.

"Prominence" is another news value. If the president sprains his ankle, it's news. If the mayor of Bum Frack, Mississippi sprains his ankle...well, it's only news in the Bum Frack Daily Herald.

Another news value is "timeliness." So let us consider the situation we have here. Suppose you work for a newspaper and you're covering the mayoral race in Minneapolis. One of the (lunatic fringe) candidates has a son, and quite some time after the mayoral race this son is in some kind of juvie legal trouble, charged with "simple robbery."

But you don't find out about it when it happens...which is long after the mayoral race, anyway.

In fact, you don't find out until the whole legal process is mostly over and done.

If you worked for "old media," (the kind that requires vast financial resources to put newspapers in news racks all over the city, vast streams of advertising revenue to drive around with a fully equipped news van, etc.) and your criteria was "timeliness," you would ignore the story about Al Flowers' son having legal troubles. It was "news" when it happened, but having found out about the hearings long after they happened...it's not timely.

So here's this hot piece of information, and you (the dead tree media) are going to ignore it, because publishing it will make it appear as though you don't know everything important right when it happens.

Oh, sure, if Al Flowers ran for mayor again, down the road, and you were writing a story about Al Flowers...you might slip in the old information about the son being charged with simple robbery. Yeah, just slip it in without drama, like you didn't miss the hot story when it was good and timely and had just happened...



But blogger media has no such pretensions. If I think the information is interesting to my audience (and, really, when ISN'T "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers interesting, whether he's disrupting a JACC press conference or unsuccessfully suing a city council member or even holding his own press conference at the imaginary intersection of Broadway and Colfax) then I'm going to publish the story.

As a blogger, I don't put on an elaborate pretense of media omniscience. I'm perfectly free to say, "Here are some interesting online court records that touch on North Minneapolis. Too bad I'm in FREAKING AFGHANISTAN and can't view the actual paper court files so I can further flesh out the story."

And I'm perfectly free to say:

Holy cow. I was looking through some online court records, seeking something else entirely, when I stumbled on Al Delano Flowers, Jr's online juvie court records.

(The records appear when I do a "search by attorney" and search under Jill Clark, who has represented the senior Al Flowers repeatedly. Why juvie records can be accessed like this, I am not sure, but the record appears on a government website and that makes it a fair-and-square public record)

The junior Al Flowers was involved in two juvie court cases, 27-JV-10-2130 and 27-JV-10-3197.

The first case began on 03/09/2010. The second began on 04/13/2010.

In the first case, Flowers pled "not guilty" to simple robbery, but was "adjudicated delinquent." (The system doesn't use emotionally scarring terms like "guilty" in a juvenile proceeding) In the second proceeding, he was charged with simple robbery and attempt to commit simple robbery. He was adjudicated delinquent on both counts.

In the first case, detention was ordered, (03/09/2010) and "interim conditions" were imposed, which were:

Attend school regularly. No contact with victims. Remain law abiding. Make all future court appearances. Obey home rules.

(I'm guessing that last one was the easiest of all)

Release was ordered on 3/19/2010, which would seem to mean young Flowers was detained from 3/9 to 3/19. There was a court trial on 4/26. There was a motion to dismiss that same date. There was a "probation referral notification" on 4/29. (Keep in mind the OTHER court matter with the other docket number started on 4/13, so it appears one thing may have gotten tangled up with the other thing)

Findings and an order were filed on 6/4. Incredibly, there was an "Order for DNA Analysis." (What was THAT all about?)

An order was filed on 6/11.

On 7/13 there was a "Notice of Appeal."

A warrant was issued 08/26/2010. The warrant was quashed on 10/18. There was a discharge from probation on 7/28/2011.

Examining the other case, the one filed on 4/13/2011, there was a remarkably similar course of events (except no mention of DNA testing) and the matter was appealed. Electronic home monitoring was "stayed pending appeal."

The last action in the case took place on 8/4 and 8/24, when there was a "Request for Trial Court Record--Appellate Court" and "Other Document."

The mother of Al Flowers, Jr. is listed in the online court record as "Patunya Cofield." Her name comes up online as the branch secretary of the Minneapolis NAACP in 2005.

She is named as the wife of Al Flowers, Sr. in this March of 2000 "City Pages" story, click here.

The result of the cases in the Court of Appeals is unknown.

Friday, September 9, 2011

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: Attorney Jill Clark Takes On Lawyers Board Of Professional Responsibility...

Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff



Attorney Jill Clark doesn't live in North Minneapolis but has involved herself in a number of North Minneapolis issues, including lawsuits against this blogger and rising to the defense of Pete "The Pedophile" Rickmyer, a notorious bane-in-the-backside to the Jordan Area Community Council. The decent people who live in North Minneapolis and want to improve their community always have to wonder, "What kind of crazy legal b.s. is Jill going to file next?" Of course, the City of Minneapolis has to wonder the same thing and has spent a fortune defending itself against Jill.

Oh, and her clients. But it's hard to tell. It feels more like Jill doing her own thing, and the clients be damned. Exhibit A: The "Old Majority" clients in the JACC case, who have been slapped with legal fees.

Now an interested "court watcher" has pointed this blogger in the direction of Jill's latest cases: taking on the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility on behalf of some allegedly bad lawyers. Here is the case information, as I found it in the online database...




62-CV-11-6138 In re Investigation of Lawyer 2011-1 vs Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 07/22/2011
Ramsey Civil
Guthmann, John H. Civil Other/Misc.
Open

62-CV-11-6139 In re Investigation of Lawyer 2011-2 vs Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 07/22/2011
Ramsey Civil
VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. Civil Other/Misc.
Open

62-CV-11-6233 In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Against Lawyer 2011-2 07/25/2011
Ramsey Civil
VanDeNorth, John B., Jr. Civil Other/Misc.
Open

The "board numbers" on these complaints--"2011-2," and "2011-1," tell us they were filed early in 2011. They were, in fact, the first two cases filed that year.

So, we have to wonder, who are the bad lawyers? Could it be Ben Myers, whose cocky head hasn't popped up in quite a while? Could it be Ben's law partner, Dokor? Ben AND his law partner? Could it be some lawyer whose shenanigans are unrelated to North Minneapolis politics, and therefore not that interesting to this blog?

Inquiring minds want to know. But of even more interest is the fact attorney Clark would take a case challenging--oh, my word!--the very body which dishes out lawyer dicipline in the State of Minnesota.

Those who speculate and opinionate about these matters have the following theory: one day in the very near future, Jill is going to find herself facing a series of well-crafted complaints against her filed with the Lawyer's Board of Professional Responsibility, mostly involving filing bogus legal crap. And Jill probably knows that.

So, just like Jill filed a lawsuit against City Councilman Don Samuels on behalf of Loon-At-Large Al Flowers after Flowers shoved Samuels at a public meeting--shoved Samuels in the back, while cameras were rolling, and the next day, incredibly, it was FLOWERS suing SAMUELS--the theory may be the best defense is a good offense.

Move quickly, RUN RUN RUN to put oneself in a position where any board dicipline can be spun as a political vendetta or payback for taking on these cases.

What a fascinating little web is being woven, here. Can anybody get to those case files and tell me more what they are about?


Tuesday, March 1, 2011

JNS BLOG EDITORIAL: Dubious $15,000 Don Allen Contract Causes Closer Scrutiny of Minneapolis Public Schools Expenditures (Dig, Corey, Dig!)

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

The story which this blog exclusively broke some weeks ago--a dubious $15,000 contract with the notorious blogger Don Allen of IBNN to promote the struggling Minneapolis Public School system--has been picked up by other media entities including The Deets blog, Twin Cities Daily Planet and, most significantly, the Star Tribune. (Pictured above)

Chris Stewart, former Minneapolis School board director, has publicly called Don Allen's blog "the equivalent of black on black crime." While often crying out about perceived racism, the vast majority of people Don Allen attacks on his grandiosely titled IBNN blog are black community leaders, including frequent attacks on President Obama and Fifth Ward City Council Member Don Samuels.

I should be clear that when I say Don Allen is "notorious," I am referring to Don Allen's lazy fact checking, his well-documented tendency to just make things up, (Poopgate! cough cough) his terrible spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization and also the fact Don Allen operates a kind of "shakedown" blog, leveling scathing accusations or THREATENING to level scathing accusations while, at the same time, offering solutions to the "problems" he has pointed out. Somehow these "solutions" often seem to involve paying money to Don Allen, such as his proposed "con man contract" which involved the Minneapolis Public School District posting (OMG!) a $25 million dollar bond as part of a "community benefits agreement."

But that's all background. In some sense, that's YESTERDAY'S news. What's new, interesting, and exciting is that once the Star Tribune started digging into Don Allen's contract, they didn't stop with Don Allen. The latest problematic MPS contract to come to the attention of the Star Tribune is a $97,000 contract with Schoolwires, Inc. to deliver website services.

Corey Mitchell, the same reporter who did the story on Don Allen, delivered a great story about the Schoolwires fiasco, click here for Star Tribune article.

I only hope Mitchell keeps digging and gets to the bottom of the financial mismanagement at MPS, especially the rumors which just won't die of $100k that went through the Minneapolis Urban League, with some of the money allegedly ending up in the hands of notorious loon-at-large Al Flowers.

Dig, Corey, Dig!

If I was the Minneapolis Public School system, right about now I'd be really, really unhappy that doing business with Don Allen has caused a Star Tribune reporter to take such an interest in mismanaged money. In fact, I'd be trying to figure out how to get out of the Don Allen contract just to get some of the egg off my face.

$$$

(Do Not Click "Read More")

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: OMG $103,770 In Minneapolis Public School Money Reportedly Funneled To "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers!


Contributed stock photo, blog post by John Hoff
Amid a rising firestorm of controversy over the Minneapolis public school system awarding a $15,000 contract to Don Allen of IBNN to (allegedly) make a series of commercials to bring students back to the Minneapolis public school district more information is coming loose alleging an even more shocking boondoggle of wasted school system dollars.

Last night, a high ranking and knowledgeable government source spoke to me on strict condition of confidentiality about the shocking reality of Al Flowers managing to shake loose $103,000 worth of school system money. Because I had nothing else handy to write on, I used a child's looseleaf notebook paper and a lavender "sparkly pen" to take notes. Though the source is convinced this expenditure of approximately $103,000 in scarce and precious school system dollars to a notorious loon really did happen, I must make it clear this is an allegation. I do not have a contract, receipts, checks, or anything like that in my hands. All I have is the word of my government source--a very solid source, I might add, who I absolutely trust--and one page of notes written with a sparkly pen.

For many months, it has been rumored among the movers and shakers in North Minneapolis that notorious gadfly and appallingly unsuccessful mayoral candidate Al Flowers had somehow gotten a big payoff of public school money, with the figure $100,000 thrown around quite a bit...

Attempts to confirm this with the school system were unsuccessful, however, though at one point Jordan Neighborhood "super citizen" Megan Goodmundson sent email inquiries to Dan Loewenson, assistant to the superintendent. In response to an information request about any contract with Al Flowers, here was Loewenson's reply on May 28, 2010:

"At this current time, and in the recent past, Al Flowers has not had any business arrangement or contract with the Minneapolis public schools. Mr. Flowers has been present at many public meetings and has requested information on many aspects of the district's work but has acted as a citizen and community activist in his interactions with us."

Goodmundson states that she figured Loewenson was doing "something slick" with his reply, and if there were any financial dealings with Flowers these dealings might be indirect or there could be some kind of entity actually receiving the money. In Goodmundson's mind, she was asking "Fess up: has that lunatic Al Flowers somehow managed to get his hands on all or part of $100,000 that originated as school system money?" But if you don't say exactly and precisely the magic words--if you don't know the actual name of the entity, or if there's a reasonably reputable fiscal agent disbursing the money to the entity--well, how will you ask the question that actually gets the information you're seeking from a mealy-mouthed bureaucrat?

To some degree, the information has been out in the public all along. Since about November of 2008, Don Allen of IBNN has been shouting about "Al Flowers" and $103,770 worth of Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) money that was (allegedly) funneled through the Minneapolis Urban League (MUL) to an entity called Front Street Marketing. Click here for JNS support site to view a document which captures discussion posted by (it appears) Don Allen on Facebook. (If the document disappears from Facebook in the manner of Don Allen's "talking baby" video disappearing from YouTube, that's fine, because screen shots have been saved)

There are, however, difficulties with the fact the information was posted by Don Allen. I can identity at least three difficulties.

1. First and foremost, Don Allen has a reputation for distorting and mangling the truth. You simply can't believe what he says anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. He has a tendency to mix pieces of the truth with his own vicious brand of deliberate falsehood.

The most notorious example is, of course, Poopgate. Yes, blogger Eric Johnson published a photo of a hooker who was urinating or defecating on the side of a house. (Truth) But Eric did not stage the photo or pay the hooker. (Falsehood, made up and published by Don Allen) In fact, it's well known in the neighborhood that Eric didn't even take the photo and Eric has never pretended otherwise. Poopgate is merely the most disturbing-yet-amusing example of Don Allen making s*** up.

So there's the problem. Yes, Don Allen has cried out for years about Al Flowers and $103,770. But who cares? It was DON ALLEN saying it. The examples of Allen's dubious reputation (everything from a company he worked for being raided by the Secret Service to a criminal record) are legion.

2. Second, Don Allen's relationship with Flowers is ambiguous. Sometimes Allen seems to be Flowers' ally, and posts complimentary stuff about Flowers. Other times, Allen goes on the offensive against Flowers, as with a post he wrote on December 14, 2010, which once again took Flowers to task and brought up the $100k, note the following paragraph:
---------
If you recall, in 2008 the Minneapolis Urban League in collaboration with Front Street Marketing, and Alfred Flowers received a pilot program grant from the Minneapolis Public Schools of more than $103,770.00 dollar to create and after-school tutoring program. I know this because I was asked to work on completing some of the paperwork and when I submitted the finished document with an invoice, I was told I wasn’t getting paid s*** and to never come back to the Minneapolis Urban League.
---------
So when Allen criticizes Flowers over the $103,770, one has to keep in mind...Allen is claiming to have worked on "completing some of the paperwork" related to that very project. His main beef? He didn't get some of the dough.

The ambiguity of the relationship between Flowers and Allen forces one to wonder about the truthfulness and motivation of the assertions that $103,770 was funneled to a Flowers-affiliated entity through MUL. Did this actually HAPPEN or was Don Allen merely WORRIED that it happened, and he didn't get a cut, but in reality...maybe a proposal went forward but nothing actually happened. (My source says otherwise, though) It's problematic enough that Don Allen is simply a liar, click here for another incredible example. Even if Don Allen weren't such a liar, the ambiguity of the Flowers/Allen relationship makes it difficult to discern the truthfulness of Allen's statement about Minneapolis School System money being funneled in the direction of Flowers and Front Street Marketing.

3.) Any interesting or relevant points Don Allen might make are buried so far beneath bad, rambling, unclear yet prolific writing that anything important Allen says is likely to be ignored, missed, or dismissed as crazed ranting. As an English Writing Major (magna cum laude) I've never been able to understand a certain type of person who is haunted by an incredible compulsion to write...yet writes so badly. Blogger Eric Johnson of Irving Inquisition actually did an extensive post dedicated to Don Allen's struggles with the English language.


So now I am put in the odd position of publishing an "exclusive story" about information that has been floating around since November of 2008, but here's the difference: it's being said by a highly believable source instead of just Don Allen. And let the public judge the credibility of this blog.

My source says as follows: Flowers was affiliated with a guy named Todd Barnes. Barnes is, of course, well known in the Jordan Neighborhood as the individual who did "strategic planning" for Jerry Moore, the former and ousted Executive Director of the Jordan Neighborhood who is currently suing this blog. The strategic planning took the form of a hard copy report which the source characterized as "unacceptable and immature." The neighborhood paid a respectable sum of money for the report. My source said $13,000. I do not have confirmation of that amount.

However, I saw the actual report about a year ago. There is somebody in the Jordan Neighborhood who has a copy. In fact, the person who possesses this copy notoriously walked off with that document when Ben Myers, who used to be in a leadership position at JACC, tried to call back the hard copies from being distributed.

It is indeed accurate to say the report looks to have been thrown together by somebody working at a junior high school level. In any case, Barnes is known in the Jordan Neighborhood because of his former affiliation with JACC and Jerry Moore. My source says Barnes was affiliated with Al Flowers. Another source states the Flowers/Barnes entity was known as Front Street Marketing, the same entity Don Allen was screaming about in November of 2008.

The $103,000 was "processed through Minneapolis Urban League (MUL) as fiscal agent," according to my source, who adds that, unfortunately, MUL has a history of this kind of loose money management and incidents like this have been "allowed to happen." In a speculative way, the source adds this:

In regard to the $15,000 that Don Allen is scheduled to receive from the Minneapolis School System for god-knows-what, there is a "likelihood that (Al) Flowers is part of the latest deal."

In the latest twist on the Don Allen saga: in court on Monday, during a pretrial hearing for the frivolous Jerry Moore "defamation" case, Don Allen spoke in open court about his desire to get a "harassment restraining order" against this blogger for writing things about his $15,000 contract with the public school system. Don Allen also threatened to get a restraining order against mild-mannered Twin Cities Daily Planet reporter Sheila Regan, as Regan made clear in a sidebar article published earlier today.

This blog post is published for the purpose of seeking favorable government action and redress of grievances, specifically in regard to credible and believable reports that notorious agitator Al Flowers got his hands upon some portion of $103,770 worth of public monies from a struggling Minneapolis school system.

An editorial note: We in North Minneapolis are tired of the shakedowns by self-serving poverty pimps who stoke racial tensions for the purpose of creating a payday for themselves, whether it be money from the government or private foundations or frivolous lawsuits, and by this I specifically mean individuals like Al Flowers and Don Allen. We are sick of our public officials playing into this sick, twisted and self-perpetuating game behind closed doors and dodging our pointed questions, and pretending everything is just fine.

Don Allen must NOT receive $15,000 worth of public money.

And we want the facts about this alleged $103,770 expenditure of MLS money involving MUL, Front Street Marketing, Flowers and/or Barnes. We want the facts and we want them quickly.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

PART FIVE: Closing The Curtain On The Late, Great Civil Rights "Toe Stepping Trial" Of 2010...

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

It is fitting the coverage of this trial should end with an image of Michael "Kip" Browne speaking. Because Browne was trying to speak at a press conference...because Browne NEEDED to speak and represent the neighborhood, but loudmouth bully Al Flowers was shouting down Michael Browne...because Council Member Don Samuels took a moral stand, and made a gesture of standing in front of Al Flowers...

And because within the span of two seconds Flowers SHOVED Don Samuels, then shoved Samuels AGAIN...then filed a lawsuit a few days later, ridiculously alleging Samuels had stepped on Flowers' toes (which reportedly lack toenails, ewwww) here we were: the great "toe stepping civil rights trial" of 2010.

It was time for final arguments by plaintiff attorney Jill Clark. Some of her first words were...


"We don't need to get too deeply into bias."

This statement was in regard to the witnesses who were presented as to whether Don Samuels did or did not step on Flowers' toes. Indeed, one might agree with Clark, here. Both sets of witnesses had their bias though perhaps one set of witnesses were biased for THE TRUTH and the other, well, you do the math.

So, indeed, let's set bias aside. Ultimately, it would appear it was a question of who was CREDIBLE.

NOT A SINGLE JUROR WAS TAKING NOTES as Clark outlined the "elements of assault." Not a single juror made a written notation as Clark said, "Getting in somebody's space is offensive conduct."

Describing Don Samuels standing with back turned to Al FLowers, arms crossed, Clark said of Samuels: He could have kicked backwards, elbowed, slugged, ANYTHING! And Clark vigorously demonstrated "could have elbowed" with her arms, elbows crooked, looking something like a funky chicken only without the actual funk.

At least twice in her closing statement, Clark made mention of something she called The Sixth Sense. While I have always understood this phrase to mean "extrasensory perception," some paranormal ability to, for example, talk to the dead as in the movie The Sixth Sense, click here for movie trailer, Clark appeared to steal a page from the all-too-innovative linguistic playbook of plaintiff witness Steve Jackson when she said "the sixth sense" somehow involved the feeling of personal space being violated.

Clark pointed out that witness Megan Goodmundson said "We were all shoulder to shoulder" in that room, but Samuels was on the other side of the room (when Flowers started doing what Flowers does so well) so, well, "couldn't he (Samuels) have been symbolic over there?"

In her closing statement, Clark put forward an idea that Don Samuels basically came up with a premeditated plan to stomp on Flowers foot and get away with it. Once again making mention of Megan Goodmundson, whose video was virtually the "Zapruder film" of this incident, Clark asked, in a conspiratorial tone, "Was the cue...when Samuels starts to walk over, turn on the video cameras?"

(At this point, dear reader, if I was telling you the story in person I would be imitating somebody's facial expression, the all-too-serious look of a paranoid as something ridiculous comes out of their mouth which makes you want to laugh, but you have to suppress your laugher as you realize, oh my god: it's not funny to the raving paranoiac. No, indeed, the raving paranoiac is making this statement seriously and expects YOU to take it seriously)

Clark next attacked the notion Don Samuels wasn't acting under "color of law" when he stood in front of Flowers. Clark used this example: A police officer who was chasing somebody but, at the moment of shooting his gun, said, "Oh, but now I am a private citizen." Despite the overwrought analogy, Clark would ultimately win on this point: the jury agreed Samuels was acting "under color of law."

But it didn't matter. Samuels hadn't stepped on Flowers' toes. So said the jury.

Clark next addressed the issue of damages, saying the defense had "not made any effort to dispute damages." At this point I looked over and saw a jurist had her arms crossed at this point. And, my word, I had thought THAT juror was one of the most sympathetic to Clark's arguments.

None of the jurors took notes as Clark talked about damages, except one juror: a young female who was scribbling furiously, as she had scribbled furiously throughout the trial. Indeed, often that juror's scribbling didn't seem to follow the ebb and flow of the trial at all. I finally formed the opinion the "novelist juror" was writing something creative which didn't relate to the claims of Al Flowers: a personal journal, a love letter, even poetry. During key points of trial drama, she didn't look up, but was scribbling furiously with her head down.

Clark talked about the previous civil rights case with Flowers, and the $1 of punitive damages in that trial. That jury, Clark said, was trying to "send a message."

(Editorial comment: Yes, but perhaps the message was intended for FLOWERS and the very existence of this toe stepping trial shows Flowers didn't get the message?)

Once again going after Megan Goodmundson in her closing statement, Clark imitated Goodmundson chanting "Shut up, Al" and noted Don Samuels didn't go stand in front of GOODMUNDSON. Clark claimed that "the real Don Samuels shows through for a moment" when Samuels related "what he said" to Farheen Hakeem.

Clark didn't repeat what it was Samuels said in that chastising tone: something along the lines of "you were a promising young woman, you ran for political office, but now you associate yourself with marginal people and with crazies."

Clark began to talk about damages and how there was a need for a relationship between the various kinds of damages. The amounts should make sense and not be random. For example, Clark talked about the relationship between $100,000 versus a million dollars...

In the back of the jury box, a young female juror with hair as dark as McDonald's coffee was looking directly at Clark and I thought I could read the expression on her face, almost use "The Sixth Sense" to read her thoughts: this is madness. This is the stuff you hear about on television, the ridiculously large jury verdicts for petty incidents. Only it's not something distant and disconnected, something on television: here I am right in the middle of it, and I have to render the verdict!

City Attorney James Moore stood to his feet and made an objection: improper argument. The judge sustained the objection.

Clark moved on breezily, asking for "damages" (amounts not specified) to deter Council Member Don Samuels from "future disregard" of the First Amendment.

Before the jury went back, the judge told them to consider whether a contradiction might result from "a lapse of memory or a falsehood."

(If I had a vote on that jury, I'd probably go with "falsehood" based on what I observed of the plaintiff witnesses)

And so the jury went to render its verdict, and I scored some lunch downtown, expecting the jury wouldn't be gone long. In fact, I'd made a public prediction of one hour. But I forgot the "lunch theory" of jury duty: if a jury breaks around lunch time, they're darn sure going to make sure they get lunch. And so the jury was actually out for something like four hours, lunch included. Word of a verdict came back at around 4:05 PM. A source tells me the jury had sent a question back to the judge. The question concerned assault and was something along the lines of: can an assault take place if there was no (deliberate?) physical contact by Don Samuels against Al Flowers? As soon as the judge answered "No," the jury announced it had a verdict.

I ran back to the courthouse after being dialed by the judge's assistant. Samuels' attorney James Moore, who works in an office nearby, returned but plaintiff attorney Clark did not, nor did Al Flowers. It was only myself and Jordan super citizen Megan Goodmundson (who is my girlfriend) present to hear the verdict in that lonely courthouse.

The judge assured the jury that a real court was not like television: parties are not always present for the verdict, but Moore happens to work nearby. So no disrespect should be taken from the gesture of individuals not being present. One or two of the jurors nodded understandingly including the venerable Mr. Martinson.

The foreperson of the jury read the verdict. She did not bother to stand. The foreperson turned out to be the "novel writing juror" who had taken so many notes during the trial, to the point I began to doubt whether her notes concerned the trial at all. Maybe I had her wrong, and maybe I had her right, but in any case she was the foreperson. The first part of the verdict concerned whether Don Samuels had acted under color of law. The answer was yes. Don had acted as a public official when he stood in front of Al Flowers.

The next part of the verdict concerned whether an assault took place. To that, the jury said "No."

And so said them all.

At some point I ran into the husband of the juror named Sandy Zappa, and I asked him what may have been the most important and pressing issue of the trial: Any relation to the musician Frank Zappa? (Click here for more info) I was informed "That is my dad's second cousin."

Thus ended the Great Toe Stepping Civil Rights Trial Of 2010.

Click here to experience, once again, the Benny Hill theme song ringtone of an unknown juror's phone, an inadvertent musical commentary on the dubious civil rights claim of Plaintiff Alfred Flowers.


Monday, November 22, 2010

PART FOUR OF FIVE: Council Member Don Samuels Triumphs Over Uncivilized, Loudmouth Bully Al Flowers...

Stock photo and blog post by John Hoff


Warning: Adult Language

My dearest readers, did you think I'd forget to conclude coverage in Alfred Flowers vs. City of Minneapolis? The part where the jury came back in four hours (lunch included) and found in favor of Council Member Don Samuels over Al Flowers in the great "toe stepping" civil rights trial of 2010? No, actually, I was saving the last part for dessert. (Think of it as a virtual "Dessert With Don.")

For those who are joining the story late, here are links to Parts 1-3.

Part One, setting the stage with Judge Schlitz, like the beer, click here.

Part Two, a parade of sometimes-pathetic plaintiff witnesses spend themselves against "The Teflon Don," to no avail, click here.

Part Three, the last fitful gasp of the plaintiff witnesses, and an overwhelming "tour de force" of credible, politically powerful defense witnesses, click here.

Don Samuels finished his testimony on November 10. The judge, jury, and lawyers would have to show up in a virtually empty court building on a federal holiday to finish up with Alfred Flowers' claim Don Samuels had deliberately stepped on his toes while Samuels' had his back turned...


And So It Ends

On November 11, the court room was lonely but there was Don Allen of the IBNN blog, dressed in a business suit, keeping one side of the court room not-so-lonely. Don Allen didn't seem so much his lively self and sat with his eyes straight ahead, unsmiling. In front of the judge, City Attorney James Moore and Plaintiff Attorney Jill Clark were arguing, but only Clark seemed to be putting much energy into the argument which, as it turned out, was a losing argument.

Clark wanted to send a "demonstrative" back to the jury room: the crudely drawn, not-terribly-accurate schematic of the JACC house which had been rendered by plaintiff witness Dokor Dejvongsa on the stand, and subsequently used by other witnesses to point out where they'd been during the incident between Samuels and Flowers. Defense witness Michael "Kip" Browne had complained, on the stand, how the diagram wasn't terribly accurate or to scale but what really mattered was whether the diagram was evidence.

It wasn't. Judge Patrick Schlitz (like the beer) said, in a somewhat didactic tone, the diagram was a "demonstrative" and therefore not evidence and THEREFORE it wouldn't be going back with the jury because, generally, such "demonstrative" evidence doesn't go back with a jury. City Attorney Moore won without needing to try very hard. So began the third day. And so would the third day ultimately end.

Clark then called Don Allen to the stand as an "offer of proof." The judge had already decided Allen couldn't testify as to Don Samuels' "reputation within the community" so the testimony took place outside the hearing of the jury so Clark could make the record as to what Allen WOULD have testified to, if he'd been allowed to testify. I had to wonder if I was the only one in the court who noted something dubious about Clark putting Allen on the stand: Clark is currently suing Don Allen on behalf of her client Jerry Moore, a case this blogger knows all-too-well.

In any case, Allen testified that he didn't agree with the idea of Samuels having a "reputation for peacefulness" within the community and, furthermore, Allen disagreed that Al Flowers frequently interrupts meetings. Allen testified that "at some meetings you can't ask questions that 'go against the grain' of what is being said." However, Judge Schlitz thought the issue of Samuels' reputation in the community made no difference and was "several steps removed" from what the jury had to decide, therefore Schlitz excluded the testimony under Rules 402 and 403.

A Jury Serves America On Veterans Day

The jury had spiffy new name tags when they entered the court room. Martinson, the senior citizen juror who seemed to particularly loathe Al Flowers, was at or near the front of the jurors as they walked to their seats.

The judge read aloud a "stipulation" of facts both sides could agree upon: In 2007, in a DIFFERENT lawsuit, Al Flowers sued Don Samuels in a case that involved things Flowers said on a (public access) television show. The jury awarded damages of $1 and punitive damages of $1. (To readers who are aware of another dollar being out there: apparently there was another defendant involved who also lost a dollar and the stipulation only involved Samuels' dollar and the punitive dollar)

Flowers took the stand again, briefly. Sitting in the seat which had been briefly warmed by Don Allen, Flowers said Don Samuels "doesn't have a reputation for peacefulness" and disagreed that he (Flowers) disrupts meetings, saying it's all about the content of what he's saying.

Well, now that Flowers had nailed down THAT loose board on the ship all by himself himself, it was time to set sail with closing statements.

Paranoid Imaginings Versus, Um, Video

Very soon into his closing argument, Moore said "let's take a look at the video." Moore described Samuels walking "slowly, calmly, peacefully" but "in two seconds, he gets shoved."

Going right after the credibility of attorney Ben Myers and Dokor Dejvongsa, who had testified about a whole lotta toe stepping, Moore said "it's ironic that two witnesses...engaged law partners, representatives of the old board...try to say they could see the feet."

At that moment, one of the jurors' cell phones rang, interrupting the proceedings with a crazy ringtone: the theme from the Benny Hill show, click here for a sample.

There was laughter, probably because the cell phone ring tone was an accidental musical commentary on the past three days: this is RIDICULOUS. How did nine normal people get roped into this charade?

Moore returned to his argument after the ringtone interruption: It defies belief that Dejvongsa doesn't see a push on the video. Flowers even says, "I pushed him" and yet, watching the video of events she herself saw in person, Dejvongsa doesn't see a push. Ask yourself, is she being a candid witness?

"I can't make her see what she refuses to see," Moore said. "Judge her credibility as a witness."

Moore next demolished Farheen Hakeem, pointing out Hakeem "tried to say words that don't appear on the video."

"Let's listen right now to what Mr. Flowers said," Moore urged, and pointed out "His focus isn't on pain or his foot but on the INSULT he perceived when Don stood in front of him...the symbolism was not lost on Mr. Flowers."

Moore talked about how Hakeem discussed her fear of being falsely accused of a crime.

"It's a conspiracy theory spun completely out of her own head," Moore said. "It has no basis in fact...she thinks people in this room are evil and out to get her."

As for Flowers, "He decides for himself there are no rules or he makes the rules...he came with an agenda to disrupt the meeting."

Moore urged the jury to pay attention to the part of the tape where Al Flowers "told a different story" as police arrived, saying something like "No, you pushed ME...don't lie."

Samuels gesture was symbolic and, furthermore, "Mr. Flowers got the point."

"The message was sent and received as between these two individuals," Moore said, coming somewhat close to the Plaintiff's table, where Flowers sat...wilting.

"Don wasn't a government official at the moment he stood in front of Flowers but a courageous individual," Moore argued. Ultimately, the jury would not agree with Moore on this point: they determined Samuels acted "under color of law" in his role as a public official at the point where Samuels stood in front of Flowers.

Focusing on Flowers' disruptive behavior, Moore asked, "Black power...what does that have to do with ANYTHING?"

At that moment, Al Flowers looked back toward the gallery and smiled. It was not clear where Flowers was looking.

"What was SAID is supposedly the reason Don Samuels acted," Moore explained. "No, let's break down their theory."

It's about the city trying to control the neighborhood board? Moore called this a "fanciful claim." No, rather, what this was all about was a simple message, which Don Samuels had articulated out loud during the same press conference: BEHAVE YOURSELF, AL."

Political Commentary By The Oh-So-Charming Al Flowers (Sarcasm Font)

There was a break between Moore's closing statement and that of Jill Clark. Out in the hallway, City Attorney Moore and Don Samuels used the restroom. Experience had taught me the men's room of a federal court building is a little too exciting, so I didn't enter the restroom but, after seeing Don Samuels enter and James Moore leave, I hung by the door for a moment so there wouldn't be a situation with Samuels and Flowers alone, and no bailiff nearby. (Parody font) If Don were at a urinal, after all, he'd have his back turned and what happens when Don has his back turned? Good god, man, it's the Jamaican karate attack position!!! With Jamaican karate (known as "karate-mon") a skilled master can assault an enemy in broad daylight in front of video cameras and get away with it, for he has his back turned the whole time! (End parody font)

At that moment Al Flowers was standing in the hallway. Looking at me, Flowers said, "He's waiting for Don to suck his dick."

How clever, I thought, thinking in the sarcasm font.

North Minneapolis has been, after all, waiting for the exciting sequel to that public access television comment "Kill the house n***er."

Well, here it was:

"He's waiting for Don to suck his dick."

And these were the last words I heard Al Flowers say. The oh-so-charming Al Flowers wouldn't even be around to hear the verdict from the jury, nor would his lawyer.

To Be Continued And Completed In Part Five...


Tuesday, November 16, 2010

PART THREE: The Late, Great Toe Stepping Trial Of The Century! Alfred Flowers vs. Don Samuels!

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

Some adult language included. Some elements of parody included. Be warned.

So after the first day of testimony concluded, see Part Two, I wrote something on my blog that night about jury selection in the trial. A troll came along and commented, as trolls are wont to do, telling me I should expect a subpoena if I showed up in court the next day, click here for that conversation, see comments.

The subpoena never happened, of course, though it would have been an honor to do my civic duty and take the stand, if asked. I was only late for the second day of court because of a prior appointment. (Parody begins here) So I missed the testimony of my fraternal twin half-brother Ben Myers, who reportedly got up on the stand and tried to say he (Brother Ben) could see Don Samuels' foot come down and step on the foot of Al Flowers.

Lies And The Lying Lie-Bags Who Tell Them

For the record, our Mama Sweetums calls Ben "the world's worst liar" but, normally, she only gets boiling mad for a day or two about stuff Ben does like lying about whether he paid any taxes on her trailer house. Yet, for some reason, Mama Sweetums seems to think "lying under oath" is the most serious of sins, something you'll never get forgiven for, unlike, for example, getting liquored up and murdering a neighbor in drunken mutual combat while jacked up on Original Formula Nyquil and vodka. The jury said "mutual combat." I'm talking GRAND jury, here, Mama was never even put on trial for that incident, no thanks to Ben Myers who said he'd be Mama's attorney but then never showed up in court because he claimed to have lost his watch, which turned up at a strip club, turned over by an honest stripper, who would have thought?

In any case...Mama has a weird thing about lying under oath and how God will forgive anything but THAT. So when she found out what Ben did on the stand, our Mama wasn't angry. No, she began crying and keening in a loud voice, saying Ben was "dead to God" and she herself would be harshly judged for failing to protect his mortal soul as a mother should. She even blamed me for not being in court that day, like I could have just...

...jumped right up and said, "Ben, don't lie! GOD IS WATCHING!"

What am I supposed to do now, dear reader? Should I tell Mama Sweetums that people can be genuinely wrong about reality, convince themselves something is the truth when it's not, and testify accordingly? Therefore their souls are not in danger, for they are merely DELUDED, not purposefully lying under oath?

Or should I say, "You're right, Ben'll be taking that long dark train to hell, alright. Does this mean you're going to give me his half of the trailer when you die?"

On the one hand, I sure want to get one over on Ben...but this really hurts our mother. So I'm put in the position of having to make elaborate excuses for Ben to spare the feelings of Mama Sweetums. But between you, me, God and the internet, I can be completely honest: Ben is a big fat liar and the jury saw right through him.

(End of parody font except, well, that last sentence was transitional between the parody world and reality)

And so I missed the testimony of Ben Myers, but I walked into court in time to see and hear Alfred Flowers talking about his precious feelings. His feelings, that is to say, about Don Samuels.

Al Flowers Talks About His Feelings...And His Toenails, Or Lack Of (Ewwww)

Don Samuels, said Flowers, doesn't represent African Americans. Samuels is JAMAICAN, said Flowers, in an accusing tone.

I snuck a glance at the jury to see if any of this was flying with jurors like Mr. Martinson.

No, it really wasn't flying.

Returning to the subject of his feelings, Flowers said he was distressed after the press conference that he couldn't "be in there and advocate." He had to "pull back" and figure out what he could do.

By "pull back," I presume Flowers may have meant look over his shoulder and wonder if he would be arrested for shoving a city councilman, until he managed to file a lawsuit a few days later as a preemptive political defense, so he could have characterized any arrest as retaliation.

Flowers talked about "pain in his heart." Flowers said his wife wasn't in favor of him doing "political stuff" anyway, because there is a fear of "what can happen to me."

Clark asked: When you saw Don that day, in what capacity did you see him? Flowers saw Don as a city council member. (All the more frightening, one might note, since Al Flowers SHOVED DON SAMUELS IN THE BACK. What would have happened if Flowers DID NOT see Don as a public official at that moment?)

Clark asked: Prior to that day, did you feel like a strong advocate? Answer: I KNEW I was a strong advocate for the community.

Clark: Were you aware of other ways to complain about Don Samuels? Filing stuff? Why did you file a lawsuit?

Flowers said: Because the Civil Rights Department, CPED, they are all run by the city. They will shut you down.

Flowers said he knew the police were coming and what he said was "Tell the truth. Tell what you did, Don."

Actually, what the "Dottie Titus Tape With Audio" shows, at about 12 minutes, 10 seconds, is Al Flowers saying "No you...you pushed me, don't, don't tell no lie. No, you better quit lying. You backed--you ain't got no bidness--you backed into me. You elbowed me."

As soon as the police were done talking to the council member, Flowers said, they (the police) "came and got me." The police said they were doing this to Flowers because of Don's "status."

Asked about a picture of himself holding up a fist, Flowers said he was saying "Black power!" in the picture. By this he meant, "We kill each other because we never come together. While millions of dollars come in we--"

Objection from the City Attorney, James Moore. The objection was sustained, Flowers answer struck as non-responsive. The jury was told to disregard what Flowers said. Chalk another one up for the defense.

Flowers felt what Samuels did was "intentional," not "accidental."

I Have Problems...That's Personal

James Moore stood some distance away from Al Flowers to cross examine him.

"As soon as you came in," Moore asked, "You began YELLING?"

You could characterize it that way, Flowers agreed, though he'd presented witnesses who'd tried so hard to downplay that aspect, and his attorney had gone on about, oh gee, MICROPHONE PLACEMENT. "I talk loud."

Moore pointed out how Flowers was not really "asking questions" but was shouting a REPEATED STATEMENT. Moore asked Flowers about the statement "I live in Jordan." You didn't really live in Jordan, did you?

Well, Flowers replied, I have a friend who lives in Jordan...I thought I was going to be living with that friend...I have problems. That's personal.

Quote marks, back there. "I have problems. That's personal."

Then, in an amazing statement of madness and hubris, Flowers explained: I thought I was going to run the Fifth Ward city council and I was going to live in Jordan."

This is why he's the Mayor of Crazy Town and, no, I'm not writing in the parody font.

"I was STAYING with somebody," Flowers explained, about his Fifth Ward residency qualifications.

Taking Flowers' mad desire for power for what it was worth, building on it, Moore said: "He (Samuels) was in your way, and that made you MAD, didn't it?"

One can't help but think of John W. Hinckley, Jr., who thought he was going to shoot President Ronald Reagan and live in the White House with actress Jodie Foster. It's a mad dream but, damn it, a man's got to have a dream. Al Flowers thought he was going to replace Don Samuels and run the Fifth Ward. Only in a world where gasoline is used as currency and warlords build a city fueled by pig excrement could something like that happen.

Why, Moore asked, are you yelling "Don't get in my way." Moore asked about the statement "You better go ahead...you better go somewhere." And "Don't get in front of me...tell Don don't get in front of me" and "Don't step in. I got a right to speak."

Moore asked, gently but firmly, "He never raised a hand to you, did he?"

Flowers began talking about aggressive backing up and toe stepping.

Moore pointed out how, after the incident, Flowers wasn't chilled in his free speech. He kept speaking out. Heck, Flowers ran for MAYOR.

After getting what he needed from Flowers, Moore appeared to decide it was time to let Flowers just show off the way Flowers' mind works for the jury. Even though Flowers' answers didn't always seem responsive, Moore kept letting Flowers talk himself into a hole in the ground. Moore asked about whether Flowers had other means to speak to Michael Browne besides shouting him down, and Flowers would go into a rant about stimulus dollars or whatever. Flowers alluded to a "prior relationship" with Browne, and actually said after Browne was "ousted from City Hall," Browne stopped working for "the people" and their civil rights. However, after Browne "did this thing" with the neighborhood association, Browne was "back in good" with the city and made his way back to City Hall.

The city, Flowers said, has taken over all the community organizations and they are no longer run by the community.

And so it was inside the bubble of madness which is the mind of Al Flowers: inside the bubble you don't realize it is madness, but you think it is reality. Real reality is very unpleasant: your mayoral campaign doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and you are not a hero to the community, but a laughingstock. People like Michael Browne and Don Samuels, these are the heroes of the community and you, Al Flowers, are a loud scary buffoon.

The community will not rise up and throw off Don Samuels, as you think inside your bubble of un-reality, an un-reality supported by unrealistic peers and friends such as Zack Metoyer and Farheen Hakeem. No, rather, the community will reelect Don Samuels again and again.

Worst of all, there is no deep dark conspiracy by the city against "the people" whose champion you purport to be. Indeed, the city is desperately trying to help "the people" have quality schools, decent housing, safe streets. Al Flowers, your shouts of "black power" are an anachronism, like spraying DDT to get rid of mosquitoes is an anachronism.

In the post-Obama for president world, "black power" is already here, and it is embodied by individuals like Michael Browne and Don Samuels. White neighbors go to the polls and, along with black neighbors, Asian neighbors, bi-racial neighbors, our colors don't even MATTER neighbors but we vote for Don Samuels at the polls. We punch out the little paper chad and we vote for BLACK POWER but we don't really think of it that way, we simply vote for the content of character.

You, Al Flowers, are not the champion of the people. In fact, you are in the way of the people.

Al, you said it yourself: I HAVE PROBLEMS.

Al, go work on your personal problems where you live in South Minneapolis and stay out of the problems of North Minneapolis.

It was time for a break for the jury. After the break, one of the court aides fetched the attorneys with the words "Let's roll."

Al Flowers came to the stand and there was a shift in his testimony, which was rather notable. Suddenly, Flowers was much more willing to talk about his FEELINGS, how deeply he had been hurt by the alleged assault (emotional damages, ka-ching!!!!) and Flowers even discussed the intimate details of his toes. Flowers alleged he possesses no nails on his big toes and was in "immediate pain" because Don Samuels was on his toes.

Furthermore, Al Flowers talked about having a FLARING ULCER which flares up if he has stress. The ulcer is so bad it has stopped him from drinking and he can't eat certain foods. After "the incident" Flowers' ulcer flared up and he stayed home for a while. Don Samuels is to blame for Al Flowers' flaring ulcer. Flowers said he wouldn't go anyplace where he knew Samuels would be, until resolving the court issue.

Compare this testimony with this video, click here.

At this point the plaintiff "provisionally rested."

An Amazing Parade Of Defense Witnesses Rapidly Hit The Stand

James Moore seemed determined to present all his witnesses that second day and let the jury go deliberate. Though Moore could have taken a great deal more time, there was really no need. The plaintiff's case was bogus and videotapes had captured key evidence.

First to the stand was council president Barbara Johnson, first elected in 1997, the year my 13-year-old son was born. The jury seemed to sit up a bit: Johnson was a powerful woman, and a couple of the jurors were from Minneapolis. She was their council president, too.

Part of the Jordan Neighborhood is Johnson's ward. Johnson provided an explanation of how a neighborhood association "empowers the neighborhood." She went into some discussion about how, yes indeed, millions of dollars were to be allocated to cities. These dollars would purchase abandoned or foreclosed homes to rehab or demolish. Johnson attended the press conference because of consternation about the elections, and a new board being elected. She wrote a letter of support for the new board because "it was important to recognize the process had taken place...there was a legitimate board."

Johnson personally witnessed Michael Browne interrupted by Flowers "hollering." Browne was unable to speak during some of the hollering. Council Member Don Samuels "stepped in front of Flowers."

Flowers shoved Don Samuels. No physical contact was initiated by Don Samuels. Johnson described herself as "watching closely" as the tense situation unfolded. She saw Samuels pushed forward twice. No, she didn't see what happened with the feet, nor what happened with Al Flowers' hands.

Jordan resident Dave Haddy took the stand. Again and again, Clark tried to shake Haddy's testimony but Haddy was like a pit bull clinging to a bloody leg: Haddy didn't know about any "theory of the defense." Haddy knew what he'd seen: Flowers pushed Samuels. There was enough space between the two men to see Samuels DID NOT step on Flowers' feet, perhaps a full foot of space.

At one point, Haddy pointed out the incident was on videotape. LOOK AT THE TAPE, Haddy urged.

Asked about whether he'd communicated with Don Samuels about the incident, Haddy admitted he had: He'd waved his subpoena in the air and said, "Thanks a lot, Don." Don Samuels lives right across the street from David Haddy. The jury smiled. This is what neighbors talk about in Jordan: not about mowing the lawn, but about the latest subpoena.

Jordan resident Tyrone Jaramillo took the stand: Tyrone ran for the board to help promote transparency and rectify impropriety. Was Flowers yelling? Jaramillo said Flowers was "borderline screaming." Samuels had been "walking calmly," then stepped in front of Flowers, back turned. Jaramillo actually read Samuels' body language to mean, "I don't want a confrontation."

Al Flowers' "Chaotic Trance" Caught On Videotape

(Please note: Megan Goodmundson is the girlfriend of the author of this blog post)

Jordan resident Megan Goodmundson took the stand. The jury was likely to see Megan as a key player in this incident, in three different ways: after the police dragged out Al Flowers, Megan had gotten the floor of the press conference and addressed issues at length on the "Dottie Titus video." Goodmundson had also been heard chanting "shut up, Al" as Flowers continued his extended rant at Michael Browne. Most important, Goodmundson had shot the silent videotape which showed--more clearly than any other piece of evidence--the shoving by Al Flowers and the period of time when the alleged "toe stepping" took place.

Plaintiff attorney Clark appears to have a special hard, dark place in her heart for Goodmundson. Indeed, Goodmundson had been somewhere near the center of the previous Flowers case regarding the cancellation of the cable access show. It was 12:15 PM, approximately, when Clark said "Good morning." It wasn't morning. After thinking about it for a second, and wondering if Clark was going to follow up with a question, Goodmundson agreeably said, "Good morning."

The whole thing was just...awkward. But at least Clark was making a show of civility unlike her uncouth client, who would later growl that I'd been "waiting to suck Don Samuels' dick" as I came out of the men's room into the hallway next to the court room.

Goodmundson testified she had first become involved in the neighborhood association in October of 2002, right when she moved into the neighborhood. In early 2003, she served 2 and a half years on the board, but continued to volunteer afterward. For a few years she helped with the annual elections. In 2008, she helped with the nominations committee after the first committee "didn't fulfill their obligations." (This was apparently Goodmundson's polite way of saying "dropped the ball.")

Yes, she'd helped on the Don Samuels campaign for city council. Guilty as charged.

Goodmundson wanted to be at the JACC press conference to "see neighbors who had been elected, and hear what they had to say." When Flowers arrived, he made a grand entrance, announcing he'd "arrived in Jordan" and had a house. Flowers went around greeting people at JACC headquarters.

Goodmundson had a camera with her that day. It was brand new, a gift from her parents. She had never used the video setting on the camera before. This was the first time she'd shot video, and she assumed the camera recorded video AND sound.

Why did Goodmundson shoot the video? Because Al Flowers was shouting loudly and "I had a camera in my hand, I thought I might as well use it." There was "contention" and here was Flowers shouting loudly. Goodmundson demonstrated how she held the camera above her head to get a good view. A still photo showed Goodmundson's hand, holding up the camera. Jill Clark's tone remained unconvinced: there had to be a conspiracy to record Al Flowers at angles which didn't show his feet!

Why did Goodmundson chant "Shut up, Al?" It was because Al Flowers seemed to be in a "chaotic trance" and she was trying to "snap him back to reality." Al was disrupting the proceedings. Even after Flowers was quiet or, one should say, LESS NOISY, Flowers still "made no effort to be quiet." At one point, Flowers loudly answered his cell phone and rudely talked while Browne was trying to give his statement.

In regard to the lawsuit, Goodmundson said she still couldn't believe it: Flowers shoved Samuels for no good reason, and then filed a lawsuit. Sometimes Goodmundson wakes up and finds it hard to believe "This is reality."

Clark ended with an odd question which didn't seem to fit anywhere: Do you feel there are people who, if behavior passes a certain boundary, think it is better to call the police than engage in self-help?

Sure, Megan agreed some people think it's better to call 911.

Later, I wondered what the question meant: were people supposed to enable Al Flowers, cover for him, endure his scary fits of temper and NOT CALL THE POLICE because the officers would oppress Flowers? We should all just endure Flowers because, really, calling the police is WORSE?

Is Al Flowers A Broken Man?

During the trial, I watched the body language of Al Flowers. He seemed unhappy and nervous. Though Flowers was the plaintiff, it seemed like there were times Flowers was actually the one on trial. One witness after another testified about how they really, really didn't approve of Flowers' behavior, for real, and poor Al Flowers just had to sit and hear the harsh criticism. The 911 tapes were the worst: Flowers shouting like a lunatic in the background as Vladimir Monroe called for police. And then three other people called the police.

Another thing I thought was interesting: I never saw Al Flowers write a note to his attorney, nor point to any written material at the plaintiff's table. In my observation, clients write notes for their attorneys. Clients point to some meaningful words in some document. I didn't see Flowers do that. For Flowers, words all appear to be verbal. The written word doesn't enter into the picture as meaningful. As a writer, this strikes me as quite odd.

Al Flowers looked broken and sad, like a race horse with a broken leg. Others who observed Flowers phrased it this way:

Flowers has lost his mojo.

During breaks, both sides retired to separate conference rooms in the vestibule of the court chamber. At one point, I could hear Jill Clark doing a harsh imitation of Megan Goodmundson: "Shut up, Al...shut up, Al." It was all bitterness and bile in the plaintiff's room. But in the defense conference room, on the other side of the vestibule, the joyous sounds of socializing were heard, laughter and conversation. I longed to be in that room, but I had a job to do.

In court chambers, during a break from the "self-inflicted trial of Al Flowers," a sentencing hearing took place, presided over by Judge Schlitz. A Hmong citizen of Canada named Mr. Phan, (spelling unknown) age 32, pled guilty to being in possession of 100,000 pills of MDMA ("ecstasy") with intent to distribute. Phan went to high school and two years of college in Canada. He felt he spoke English just fine, and had no accent, but a Hmong interpreter dutifully sat by, at the ready. A young woman in the back of the court room seemed to be a relative: too far away to be a wife, I was guessing a sister.

It was like, ho hum, a prison sentence handed down in the recess of the toe stepping trial. SOME folks were still involved in real, serious activities.

Out in the hallway, a woman who seemed to be a friend of Jill Clark commented, "What a waste of tax payer dollars."

Yes. Common ground. But perhaps we might disagree on whose FAULT that is.

Before the jury came back in the Al Flowers trial, the judge had a conference in open court with both attorneys. He said the jury will be asked "Whether Samuels took adverse action and whether the action would have chilled a person of ordinary firmness."

If they don't find an assault, the judge said, I may direct a verdict for the city.

"If they don't find an assault," the judge said to Jill Clark, "I don't see how you have a First Amendment claim."

And so it really WAS the great toe stepping trial of the century: the jury may have THOUGHT they were deciding many things, but really it all came down to whether you believe Al Flowers' toes were stepped on.

An Electric Current Goes Through The Jury Box At The Testimony Of Michael "Kip" Browne


Michael Browne took the stand and went through his resume for the jury. The jury appeared impressed. Here was a trial about civil rights and the defense witness was...a civil rights attorney? This was so much more impressive than the third party also-ran plaintiff witness, the oddly-dressed guy from cable access, and (parody font) my dubious semi-sibling Ben Myers, who fancies himself an attorney, but has been known to end up paying money to somebody he sued, click here.

It's not SUPPOSED to work that way, Ben.

(End of parody font)

Browne explained he ran for the JACC board because of the issue of vacant and boarded houses. Browne "wanted to do something about that." Browne finds the distinction of "pro-city" versus "pro-community" to be meaningless labels. The press conference was, in fact, an attempt to bring people together and "heal the rift."

There are issues in the neighborhood. There are serious issues. Besides vacant houses, there are crime issues: drug dealing and prostitution.

At this, it seemed like a slight electric current went through the jury. Several sat up slightly. Their expressions seemed to say: it's THAT bad in your neighborhood? No wonder you are passionate about your neighborhood association. You are fighting for your lives. OK, this is actually serious. I need to really pay attention, here, because this is SERIOUS.

Why did Samuels stand in front of Al Flowers as Flowers tried to shout down Michael Browne, the man so passionate about his neighborhood and doing something about the drugs, the prostitution? Browne said Council Member Samuels seemed to be offering up his body "like a human shield" so Flowers would be "screaming at the back of his (Samuels') head."

At this point, Jill Clark asked city attorney James Moore to stand up and help her with a demonstration. Many attorneys would have objected at that point but Moore was all, like, WHATEVER. Clark poised Moore between herself and Browne on the stand. Then Clark shouted at that back of Moore's head: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? Clark also waved her arms.

See? Clark said. It doesn't work. You can still hear me.

In my opinion, the demonstration backfired. In fact, it demonstrated how meaningful it was to stand in front of somebody and shield somebody else from rude shouting. Nobody ever said Al Flowers couldn't be heard just because Samuels was standing in front of him, nor that he couldn't be seen. The demonstration tended only to show the plaintiff was being ridiculous by insisting an assault happened by somebody standing with their back turned, and such an assault was the whole intent of standing with the back turned.

City Attorney James Moore asked Browne how he got his current job with the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department. Browne answered he moved with his boss, basically, to run stuff.

Any aggressive physical action by Don Samuels toward Al Flowers? No, there wasn't.

Mayoral Aide Sherman Patterson testified. Again, the jury sat up respectfully. The witnesses brought by the defense were powerful people, not losers and malcontents. Witnesses were hitting the stand like soldiers hitting a beach in rapid-fire succession, actually being prepped for launch by a paralegal in the defense conference room. Here was Patterson, an important aide to the mayor, but his testimony didn't even last long. It was one witness after another, bang bang bang.

John George "PJ" Hubbard hit the stand. The judge wanted to know where "PJ" came from. PJ explained he got his nickname "from growing up." PJ Hubbard had a clear recollection of the Farheen Hakeem conversation: she was being very animated "as if somebody was doing something to her" and PJ thought, "Are you fo' real?" (Parody font:) No, she answered, I'm Far Heen." (End of parody font)

Robert Hodson took the stand and said he ran for the board because of questions about the finances of the organization. It was "suggested he run with an idea to get an idea about the finances." He was interested in the FINANCES, not so much the community issues. It was, for him, like an "academic exercise." If anything, Hodson would call himself "anti-city" because he is in frequent disagreement with city policies.

Hodson was at the center of a long moment of testimony drama, since Hodson was the only witness who called 911. The 911 tapes were introduced as evidence as Hodson sat on the stand.

The 911 tapes were categorized by name of operator (who knew?) and the time and date. Attorney Moore wanted the jury to be clear on this: the names of the files visible on the computer were the names of operators, not callers.

Hodson testified he'd called 911, but then hung up because he was "told others had dialed 911." The operator actually called him back.

The first 911 tape was Vladimir Monroe, who must have been quite near Al Flowers. Al Flowers' shouted words can be heard so clearly the listener can figure out where in time, precisely, the 911 call fits with the video tape that has audio. Listening to the call, one can't help but be reminded of dramatic television programs where somebody is calling 911 and, in the background, one can hear the sounds of the emergency which caused the dialer to summon police: the drunken, armed man...the domestic beating...the lunatic making crazed demands.

Even knowing how things turned out, one still subjectively half-expects Vladimir to be violently confronted on the audio tape, the phone wrestled from his hand, the line going dead with an electronic shriek.

The next 911 call was Anne McCandless saying, "Al Flowers is going off on Don Samuels" and "Al just SHOVED Don Samuels." McCandless pointed out she was a retired Minneapolis police sergeant and, in fact, requested a specific officer to be sent BY NAME. The 911 operator pleaded, "Let me do my job."

The next call was a 911 hang-up.

"Could that have been you?" Moore asked Hodson. Could have been, Hodson agreed.

The audio tape then records the operator calling Hodson back. The operator is very focused on whether weapons are visible.

"It's Al Flowers, so who knows what he carries?" answers Hodson, who points out, "They haven't come to blows, yet."

At one point, the operator has a disbelieving tone. This is happening at the neighborhood association office? The council member is right in the middle of it?

"NEVER A DULL MOMENT!" Hodson exclaims, cheerfully.

Jill Clark asked, "Did you know whether Don Samuels had a weapon on him that day?" Hodson answers no, he did not know.

But, Clark pressed, the operator didn't ask you THAT?

No, Hodson had to agree, the operator did not.

And there you have it. The conspiracy. The smoking gun.

The last call was an unknown female. It was brief, because squads were on the way.

One Guy Goes To The Bathroom, EVERYBODY Goes To The Bathroom

Dan Rother was the next witness, but he'd stepped out to the men's room. So the judge decided it was a good time for everybody to take a break. When Rother testified, he said he was recruited by the JACC Executive Director, Jerry Moore, to run for the board. Rother described Flowers as "very vocal and wouldn't wait his turn." Rother clearly saw Al Flowers' hands come up and shove Don Samuels.

Clark had no questions for Rother. Rother got off easy.

Don Samuels Can't Stand "Disorder And Disrespect"

Don Samuels took the stand again. His duties, he said, are to make policy and to tweak policy, to address livability issues, and constituency concerns. He tries to assure access to city government. Though his political career arguably started on the Jordan neighborhood council, he is forced to "distance himself somewhat" to avoid "the perception of undue influence." He respects the grassroots neighborhood process and doesn't want to "contaminate the purity" of the process.

Samuels went to the press conference to "witness and be seen as involved in the neighborhood's work."

Yes, at one time Samuels had been hoping to set up an office in the JACC headquarters. When Don Samuels tries to meet with people in the neighborhood at the Bean Scene, all his appointments "get interrupted ten times" by somebody coming in to talk. But the old board didn't give him an office and, the way things ended up, neither did the new board.

Oh, well.

Don Samuels testified he "can't stand disorder and disrespect." On the day in question, Flowers was "persistently and unnervingly loud."

Clark stopped the proceedings for a sidebar conference. The proceedings continued after the sidebar. What was THAT all about, I wondered?

Why, Moore asked, did Samuels make his GESTURE of physically standing in front of Al Flowers as Flowers shouted down Michael Browne?

Because, Don Samuels answered, he wanted to "create a sense of confidence that there was leadership which disapproved of the disturbance" and "we weren't all just sitting down subject to a RANT" and "there had to be a response that this was not OK, this disorder."

Samuels explained, "I was careful and thoughtful about what I was doing. So I approached with my arms folded. I walked in front and stood with my back to him. It was a symbolic gesture that said we are having a meeting in this circle."

Moore asked about the conversation with Farheen Hakeem. Samuels said "Farheen approached me. I don't know her well. She was expressing her disapproval of me. I said, you ran for political office and you were a promising young lady. And now you align yourself with marginal people, with craziness. This is not good."

Moore asked about whether Samuels could order the police to do his bidding. Samuels answered, "In my relationship with the police, they tend to tell ME what to do." He described an incident where he was caught speeding because his daughter had to go to the bathroom very badly. A cop pulled him over and gave him a ticket. The daughter just had to wait. Samuels denied getting special treatment from the police.

Clark questioned Don Samuels about the conversation with Farheen. Samuels said of Farheen, "She is aligning herself with violence."

"Violence, sir?!" Clark exclaimed.

"Violence," Samuels said, calm and even.

I waited for the line of questioning to continue. What violence is Farheen aligning herself with? That was the obvious question. The obvious question didn't come. Clark moved to a different topic.

Was it out of order, Clark asked, what you said to Farheen?

Samuels didn't think it was out of order.

Did you tell Farheen that Flowers was CRAZY? Clark asked.

Yes, Samuels replied, calmly.

However, Samuels said, he doesn't DISLIKE Flowers. Samuels face seemed to say, "I actually feel sorry for Al."

"What was meant by leadership when you stood in front of Flowers?" Clark asked, and I could see the "color of law" argument being built: Samuels did what he did as a council member, not a private individual. Samuels said he hoped somebody would "take leadership." He was trying to support somebody "taking leadership."

Clark didn't seem to like the "symbolic gesture" line of reasoning AT ALL. What is more powerful against a "chilled my free speech" case than the response, "No, I didn't, I just used free speech right back"? Clark pointed out Samuels had not written any emails talking about the "symbolic stance."

"I didn't need to," Samuels said, and appeared to shrug. "Everybody understood it." Furthermore, right after the incident happened it was "posted on YouTube."

Samuels explained he has "often put (himself) passively in harm's way." He has led the community this way. And, really, he'd be glad to provide examples.

I leaned forward, hoping Don would talk about the time he told a drug dealer to leave his neighborhood, while holding his baby daughter in his arms. Clark wanted none of THAT, however. What, she asked, did Samuels think the police would do when they showed up?

Samuels thought the police would "come...and stand there and do nothing." He had seen it happen before.

And so that day of testimony wrapped up. The jury would have to return the next day, November 11, to deliberate in a closed courthouse.