The Late Mister Early--Sounds Like An Abbott And Costello Routine, Doesn't It?

Abbott and Costello image used for First Amendment commentary and criticism, blog post by John Hoff, "The Late Mr. Early" copyright John Hoff, 2011. 


Pardon my dark gallows humor. Blame it on being in Afghanistan, month after month.

As I was researching the death of "the late Mr. Early" and the wasted life of his possible father, also named Early (therefore an earlier Early) I was reminded of an Abbott and Costello routine.

You know, Who's on first? What's on second? And I Don't Know is on third?

So I took a crack at writing up this (admitted) tragedy as an Abbott and Costello routine, with dubious results.

Here, as a twisted little Thanksgiving Day present to Johnny Northside readers, I present "The Late Mr. Early" ...



Abbott: (By himself, looking at audience from a stage set made to look like a street corner)

I was reading a neighborhood blog the other day, and what I read was a real shame! Frank Sam Early, a convicted drug dealer, dead in a senseless random shooting. Now I guess you could say he’s the late Mr. Early!

And then the same blogger managed to dig up some info about some other guy with the same name, Frank Sam Early, who might be the father of the other Early! This older Early went to prison, too, in the 1970s. He was also convicted of the same thing: dealing drugs.

But the blogger who dug up the info couldn’t determine if the earlier Early is dead or alive.

Oh, here comes my friend Costello. I know he sometimes reads that blog, too.

Abbott: (Speaking to Costello, who walks up) Ah, it’s a shame, I tell you, a real shame! Early is now late.

Costello: Wait. Early is late? How can early be late? Early is early!

Abbott: But now Early is late.

Costello: Early’s not early no more?

Abbott: Early will always be Early. But now he’s the late Early.

Costello: So is he late, or is he early?

Abbott: Which one?

Costello: Early? Or late?

Abbott: Both!

Costello: Fine, both then! So is Early late?

Abbott: I know one of the Earlys is late. I’m not sure about the other one.

Costello: Wait! There’s TWO earlys?

Abbott: Exactly.

Costello: And one of the earlys is late?

Abbott: I’m afraid so!

Costello: How do we know which early we’re talking about, then?

Abbott: Well, one is the early Early, and one is the late Early.

Costello: WHICH ONE?

Abbott: The early Early may or may not be late. We don’t know, yet. The late Early is definitely late.

Costello: You already said that! But it still doesn’t make any sense!

Abbott: I agree. It’s totally senseless.

Costello: That early is late?

Abbott: Precisely!

Costello: We finally agree on something! So who decided this?

Abbott: To make Early the late Early?

Costello: Yes!

Abbott: We don’t know, yet. The police are looking into it.

Costello: The POLICE are looking into why early is now late?

Abbott: Precisely.

Costello: But the other early is still early, right? There's no problem there, right?

Abbott: Well, the police already looked into the early Early.

Costello: Why did they look into the early early? What was the problem there?

Abbott: Drugs.

Costello: The early early was involved with drugs?

Abbott: I’m afraid they both were.

Costello: Who was?

Abbott: BOTH the Earlys.

Costello: The late one and the early one?

Abbott: Yes. But we don’t know if the early Early is late. We only know that the late Early is late.

Costello: Which early?

Abbott: The latter.

Costello: The latter early is late?

Abbott: Precisely. But the early Early might also be late. We just don’t know.

Costello: The police are looking into that?

Abbott: No. The police are only looking into the latter Early.

Costello: They’re not looking into why the early early is late? They don’t know if he’s late?

Abbott: Precisely.

Costello: Well, why would they look into one and not the other if both the earlys might actually be late?

Abbott: Because what happened with the early Early happened a lot earlier. A long time ago, in fact. If the early Early was late a long time ago, then I’m sure the police already looked into it. If it was suspicious, I mean.

Costello: If WHAT was suspicious?

Abbott: Why the early Early was made the late Early. If he was. The police would only look into that if it were suspicious. Any Early might become late, but that doesn’t mean it’s suspicious.

Costello: Any early could become late?

Abbott: Just like the rest of us. We’ll all be late some day.

Costello: Will the police look into it?

Abbott: Only if it’s suspicious.

Costello: Why I’m late?

Abbot: Precisely. But you’re not late, yet, you’re standing here talking to me.

Costello: How do you know I’m not late?

Abbott: You’re standing here talking to me, aren’t you?

Costello: I’ve been standing here talking to you for five minutes and not a thing has made sense! We’ve got a late early, an early early who might be late, and the police are looking into why early is late! But only ONE of the earlys, even though the other one may be late as well. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!

Abbott: Didn’t I say it was senseless?

Costello: (Grabs his hat as it appears to almost fly off his head. Runs around in a circle, gets up in Abbot’s face) Now you’re gonna tell me right now! If I’m late, are the police going to look into it?

Abbott: Only if it’s suspicious.

Costello: I gotta get out of here. I’m worried that I’m gonna be late.

Abbott: Why? You got health problems?

Costello: I feel like I’m losing my mind!

Abbott: Well, don’t turn to drugs. That’s probably why early is late.

Costello: Just one of them?

Abbott: No, they both did drugs.

Costello: Did the police look into it?

Abbott: Yes, into both of them.

Costello: I thought the police were only looking into the one?

Abbott: The police are looking into why the late early is late. As for the early early, drugs were involved, but that investigation was concluded a long time ago. Though I imagine if the early Early isn’t late, then the early Early is probably still using drugs.

Costello: If the early early isn’t late, the early early is using drugs?

Abbott: Probably.

Costello: I’m think I’m going to use some drugs in a minute, here.

Abbott: Don’t do it. It will make you late.

Costello: And then the police will look into it?

Abbott: You bet they will.

Costello: But you don’t know if the police looked into the early early?

Abbott: I know for a fact they looked into the drugs with both the Earlys. I just don’t know if the early Early is late, and if the police ever looked into THAT.

Costello: But if the early early is late, you think drugs were the cause?

Abbott: Could be. But it could be murder. Then again, maybe the early Early just died in his sleep.

Costello: How can an early die in his sleep?

Abbot: Which one?

Costello: Either of them!

Abbott: You’re right. They’re a lot more likely to be murdered, or overdose on drugs.

Costello: I give up. I’ll never understand this.

Abbott: Didn’t I say it was senseless?

Costello: Senseless is talking to you!

Abbott: Where is she? I don’t see her.

Costello: (Runs away, screaming)

Abbott: (Yells after) Be careful, acting like that! You’re in a tough neighborhood! YOU DON’T WANT TO END UP LIKE EARLY!

Costello: (From off stage) WHICH ONE!? THE EARLY EARLY OR THE LATTER?

Abbott: Ladder!

(Off stage, Crashing sound of aluminum, Costello crying out in pain)

Abbott: (Looking at the audience, helplessly) I told him to look out for the ladder.

JNS Blog Has Unverified Information The Father Of Two Month Old Shooting Victim Is Isaac Early, A Convicted Felon...

Creative stock photo, "The Rectory," blog post
by John Hoff

This information comes from the same confidential source who told me the name of Northside's latest baby shooting victim is James Early. Once again, I will warn readers this information is unverified and depends completely upon my source.

And, yet again, I will describe my source so readers can understand what level of confidence I have in my source, which I would put at 94.6 percent. The source is "frequently in the know, in the mix, believed to be reliable and with no reason to lie."

My source tells me the father of a two-month old shooting victim at 2413 Emerson Avenue North is named Isaac Early and he has a criminal record...

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: Jury Composition In The Brian Flowers Murder Case

Photo By John Hoff

Mainstream media have extensively covered the Brian Flowers murder trial but I, for one, find most newspaper and television stories lack enough details to keep me satisfied.

Let's face it, some folks want EVERY NUGGET OF INFO THEY CAN GET about certain stories. Knowing the blogosphere could contribute something, even on a story covered well by the other media, I ducked into the Flowers trial yesterday during a break in State of Minnesota vs. Larry Maxwell. With a sense of entitlement, I took a seat in the row marked "For Media Only."

Wow, I thought. Now there's a jury that looks like it will put Brian Flowers away for a long, long time...

Why, it almost reminded me of...the jury in State v. Maxwell!

While a prosecution witness testified about blood evidence tracked all through the house and 3639 1st Ave. S, and images flashed on a screen of--among other things--a smashed television set used as a murder weapon against a child--I wrote down the vital vitals about the jury and alternates.

There are fifteen of them, which means three are alternates. They consist of eight white males, five white females, one young female who looks (to me) Hispanic, and one young female who looks (to me) Asian or Amerasian. Here are their descriptions and, of course, the nickname designations readers have come to expect.

# The Close Sitter. You've heard of Seinfeld's "close talker?" Well, this guy is a close sitter. A college aged male wearing a red shirt, he doesn't have a regular jury seat but a chair placed so close to the witness stand and the evidence projector screen that he will surely be scarred for life from these proceedings. Voted most likely to wake up screaming during proceedings.

# The Tennis Fan. A white woman in her early 50s, she moves around more than the other jurors. As questioning takes place, she glances back and forth at the verbal exchanges. Sometimes she will even look over in ANTICIPATION of a response, as though looking for an expected reaction. She crosses her arms, uncrosses them, shifts in her seat. Voted most likely to annoy her fellow jurors by talking more than other people.

# Mr. Grim. A white male, not overweight for his age but just very LARGE, probably Scandinavian. His arms are VERY crossed and his expression is GRIM. If, moments after Flowers is convicted, (I'm calling it, here) there were a request for volunteers to thrash Flowers within an inch of his life before sending Flowers off to prison, Mr. Grim looks like he would step forward and teach that little punk the meaning of pain.

# The Rogue. A blonde woman whose age shape-shifts in front of me. First I think early 30s, but then I think she could surely pass for late 20s. There are deliberate and extreme blonde highlights in the hair above her forehead, reminding me of the X-men comic book heroine "Rogue." However, it takes more than individualized hair to hang a jury: "Rogue" is on the side of good, not evil. The murderous Mr. Flowers will not escape the wrath of Rogue.

# The Bearded One. A man in his 50s with an immaculate gray "Colonel Sanders" style mustache and beard. Looks like he may care deeply about things like lawn care and picking up litter. Voted Most Likely To Participate In Civil War Re-Enactments Playing The Role Of Stonewall Jackson. If not for the EXTREMELY grimmy nature of "Mr. Grim," this guy would be Mr. Grim.

If Mr. Grim volunteers to thrash Flowers within an inch of his life, The Bearded One would step in and take leadership, make sure the thrashing is ORGANIZED so it lasts a while.

# Miss Respectable. Possibly in her late 40s, but she could easily pass for mid to late-30s. Dresses like a person with money and status. Her white sweater--possibly cashmere--is long sleeved so as to cover even the bottom of her palms, and has a turtle neck, too. She wears an understated dark necklace. I thought I saw a wedding band before she moved her hand. Elegantly thin but not anorexic, with smartly-coifed short dark hair, she appears to be wearing a look of suppressed horror.

But other times, there are hints of other expressions: loathing and contempt.

# Miss Casual. A young female who seems Hispanic, she leans back into her chair, almost using the back of the chair for a pillow. She is more casual than any of the other jurors. She looks like she is trying to chew gum without making it obvious, or working a small candy like a Tic Tac around in her mouth. None of the evidence seems to be having much of an impact on her. She's probably watched too much television.

# Mr. Decent Shirt. A college aged male with straw colored hair, he wears a long sleeved white dress shirt, possibly new, not tucked into his blue jeans. He appears to be making an effort to look decent despite not having a lot of formal clothing. Whenever a new spectator enters or leaves the room, he looks over to see what's up, unlike the other jurors. Part of this is because of his position so near the spectators, but he's not REQUIRED to turn and look. It seems to me he is influenced by the opinions of others rather easily, and will go along with the crowd.

But, for that very reason, he might be more inclined to be sympathetic to Brian Flowers. The evidence appears to show Flowers didn't do most of the heavy work during the murder, but went along with his friend.

# Miss Horrified. Late 40s or early 50s, she has glasses which she wears to look at things far away, projected on the screen--and she dresses in a gray suit which appears like it might be a jogging suit. She's not in shape. She looks like she's spent a lot of time in her life doing things for others instead of for herself. A handful of times, I see the expression on her face: horror.

# The Model. Perhaps 19 to 22 years old, very thin and pretty enough to be in fashion magazines, wearing a skirt that comes up above her knees, Asian or Amerasian unless I miss my guess and she's Hispanic. The model is taking more notes than anybody else, clearly she has looks as well as brains. Classic overachiever. Sympathizing with Flowers PERSONALLY will be almost impossible, but she's probably read some social science stuff and may have a sort of impersonal, abstract sympathy for him.

But that won't go very far. A long time ago, The Model learned you don't hang out with friends who are going to be a bad influence on your grade point average. She takes notes like she's in a criminal law class and none of this is PERSONAL. Voted Most Likely To Read And Understand The Jury Instructions.

# Back Row Boys, 1 through 4. In the back of the jury is a solid row of four mature white males, very attentive and quite willing to lean forward to see images of evidence projected on the screen, like they're all looking together at a rattle-y engine and figuring out how to fix it. If Mr. Grim and The Bearded One were going to give Flowers a thrashing, the Back Row Boys would jump in, together, and truly make it a mob.

The last juror--and most worrisome of all to the prosecution, I would think:

# She Who Can't Be Seen. In the deepest corner of the jury box sits a female--not young but not old. Her hair MIGHT be in a bun, or it might not. It MIGHT be gray or it could be dark blonde. It was obvious I couldn't see her well but then I realized she can't be seen well from most angles--judge, witness, defense and prosecution. In fact, she's actually sitting directly below the court camera, so she's truly invisible.

Did she engineer that seating arrangement purposefully, or was it random? WHO IS THIS MYSTERIOUS JUROR AND WHAT POWER DOES SHE HOLD?

Voted Most Likely To Worry Somebody Associated With The Defendant Will Hunt Her Down After The Trial.

Here's your Johnny Northside Bookie Odds, and keep in mind I called the Larry Maxwell trial as a slam dunk for the prosecution roughly two weeks before conclusion.

Odds of Brian Flowers getting a hung jury: 13 to 2.

On another note: Brian Flowers often turns to see who is entering the court room when he hears the door open. Where he sits, the court room door is directly behind him, which must make him feel very vulnerable in light of all the angry family members associated with the victim who are, at various times, entering and leaving.

During one of these turn-and-looks, Brian Flowers accidentally met my eyes. He then dropped his eyes like a cowering dog, and quickly turned his face. If ever a young man looked guilty-as-all-get-out, that young man would be Brian Flowers, sitting in front of a jury of his peers. (Sort of...sort of his peers, and sort of NOT his peers)

But does Brian Flowers feel remorse? Oh, yes, he is DEEPLY remorseful. Note remorseful enough to plead guilty and take his punishment, however.

It's because of moments of personal connection like meeting the eyes of Brian Flowers that one feels the temptation to hang out at the courthouse, watching trials. When one is a blogger, the temptation is particularly severe. Interesting, complex dramas are happening all the time in our society. Does the media dig deeply enough into these stories to satisfy our needs, or desires for information?

No, they do not.

So you might be asking yourself, "What is a guy who blogs about NORTH MINNEAPOLIS doing writing about the Brian Flowers murder trial?

Good question. Here's an answer: even though this crime took place at 3639 1st Ave. SOUTH, some media like Fox reported the crime happened in NORTH Minneapolis.

It's not like the mainstream media have an AGENDA against North Minneapolis. No, they just have a stereotype. The errors made in the coverage of this murder reveal the reality of that stereotype.

But I can't point fingers too hard, because North Minneapolis still has the unsolved Annshalike Hamilton murder. At least in South Minneapolis, somebody spills their guts and the suspects are arrested.

Minnesota House Of Representatives Candidate Yoman Brunson (Republican) Asked To Leave Hawthorne Annual Meeting (And Then He Gets SCHOOLED)

Photo By John Hoff

Shortly before the annual meeting, Minnesota House of Representatives candidate Yoman Brunson arrived, and began passing out fliers.

I spoke to him briefly and...

...found him quite pleasant. When he handed me his flier, I was looking for one thing: Brunson's party affiliation.

Candidate? Or "Mystery Can?"

I looked. I looked. I flipped the flier over. I looked again. Was I missing it?

"So," I asked. "Are you a Democrat? A Republican? A Green?"

He'd have my vote if he were a green. Any Green party candidate would have to get up early Monday morning and work hard until late Sunday night, messing up, before they'd lose my vote.

"I'm a Republican," he answered, right away.

"Where is your party affiliation on this flier?" I asked, a wee bit accusatory. Yeah, like leaving off "REPUBLICAN" was an accident in a district where, historically, Republicans fare poorly during elections. (Brunson's own blog points to 60 years of DFL control)

"It's not on there," he answered.

"Gee, don't you think that's KIND OF IMPORTANT?" I asked.

He told me it was the MESSAGE which mattered. I was all, like, if it's the MESSAGE that matters, why bother having political parties at all? Let's let everybody run on their own message and have to explain what they stand for from Square One. Heck, let's stop labeling food in packaging. Let everything be a SURPRISE like the "Mystery Cans" my family used to dive out of dumpsters.

(OK, I didn't actually say all that during our brief conversation, but I'm saying it NOW)

Seems Nice (As Evidenced By Smile)

I didn't want to argue. Brunson seemed quite sincere and the fact he was emphasizing GET MORE POLICE OFFICERS caught my riveting attention immediately. Yes, I want more cops. I want sting operations in North Minneapolis, not just South Minneapolis. I want enough cops to sit in one place long enough to bust the open air drug markets. I could go along with what he was saying. I'd prefer to compare it to what his opponent was saying, of course.

I took his picture and promised to write about him on my blog. I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT HIM PASSING OUT FLIERS. I just want to make that clear. If it were me, I'd be bragging about it. In the back of my mind, I thought his campaigning at the meeting might not be welcomed, but I was a lot more concerned about the drug dealing I photographed right outside the window or daring daylight raids on the buffet table by unaccompanied minors than I was about Yoman Brunson.

A short while later, though, I saw one of the folks in charge speaking to Brunson and telling him this was our ANNUAL MEETING, and not really a time and place for people running for office to show up and campaign. (For one thing--and I'm just adding this on my own--we were having an election in that very room in a few hours)

Brunson was cool about it. He smiled and left right away. Heck, he never STOPPED smiling. His smile is perpetual.

Grading Brunson's Website: B Plus.

Here is Brunson's website, click here. First, let me critique the website before I address the guy's platform. I'm going to pretend Brunson is one of my students fromt the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and this was an assignment we gave him...only I'd probably dial back the critique quite a bit for students. Well, except during the first couple weeks of the semester. Duh!

First of all, Brunson's website doesn't have enough content. Content, all the time, something new every day if possible, students. Yeah, I sometimes don't follow that suggestion myself...but then I make up for it by racking up more than a hundred posts in a month, so it more than averages out.

If worse comes to worse, put up some pictures. People love to see themselves (if it's a complimentary likeness) and see folks they know (whether it's a good picture or not).

So, yeah, as a WEBSITE Brunson's blog needs more daily content. But if you wanted to go there one time and browse around for info about Brunson and what he stands for...well, it's quite adequate as a source of information.

However, the blog could use a proofreader who paid more attention in English class than Brunson apparently did. The guy's not half bad, but there's quite a few glaring errors...leading me to wonder if Brunson has ANYBODY working daily on his behalf except Brunson, himself.

OK, for example...Brunson is really emphasizing that "more cops, more public safety" thing, calculating (quite smartly, I think) North Minneapolis residents are so fed up with crime they'd vote for somebody promising more cops and ignore party labels...especially when Brunson is going out of his way to soft-pedal or even CONCEAL his own party affiliation.

In any case...let me point out the messy errors and sloppy communication in one small piece of Brunson text. (The Latin word "sic" stands for "thus," and when inserted into text draws attention to an error quoted verbatim in the original text)

We Have Some Work To Do!
There have been many success (sic) in the Northside, but we continue to face the same problems. Today, I was door-knocking in our neighborhoods, and there were many things that I am not pleased with. As I was door knocking, I noticed many illegal activities taking place. Namely, selling drugs in our neighborhoods. I do not appreciate this activity in our neighborhoods, during the middle of the day, in front of children, and 2 inches away from myself.

(Paragraph break not in original text)

As I continued to make my way through our neighborhoods, and spoke to more neighbors, some indicating they are feed up (sic) and are waiting to move away from our district. Now is not the time to turn our backs on our district. Like I say, working together, there is nothing we cannot achieve. We must work together to take back our streets and neighborhoods. A change is not going to occur overnight however, showing everyone the unity of our community will have lasting effects. I will not stand by and allow my community to slip backwards, and I know many of you in our community will not let that happen as well. Let's work together to make a real impact, and make this the best district in Minnesota!

Sigh. OK, this might hurt a little. First I'd lavish praise on the student about what I see as strong CONTENT. Brunson, you're out there pounding the sidewalks and you're inches from drug dealers. You want MORE COPS. Very good and basic, especially when you have to keep it simple because this is a flier, after all. But you've got a bunch of technical errors.

First, you need to fix the obvious typos designated by "sic." Did you proofread? Well, then it may be necessary to proofread TWICE, Mr. Brunson. Citizens are "feed up?" Sir, your opponents will have a field day with that, even if it's behind your back.

Moving on...in the second and third sentences, you repeat the "I was doorknocking" thought twice. Repeating ideas with very similar wording causes readers to tune out. So find a way to phrase it in a fresh way. How about, "As I walked the sidewalks between the houses of residents"?

OK, now note how you used the word "namely." It's not really used correctly. If you said, "I saw a prominent drug dealer, namely Khameron Lake" then you'd be using the word correctly. I think you were going for a word like "specifically." Oooh, that's a good word. Without using it TOO MUCH, you may want to sprinkle that word around, so folks in the district will say stuff like "He doesn't talk in vague generalities, but gets down to the SPECIFIC details."

Now then, in the last sentence of your first paragraph--and yes, I gave you some paragraph breaks. People DO NOT LIKE thick text. Their eyes need a break. But in the last sentence, it's not clear whether you're being a little humorous of if you're actually suggesting reform measures like...get the drug dealers to only deal at night, so children getting off the bus don't see it.

Why not go right after your opponent's jugular here, Mr. Brunson? Say something like "Sixty years of DFL leadership in this district have not changed daily reality in North Minneapolis: drug dealers who peddle their poison in the middle of the day, in front of children getting off the school bus, inches away from decent citizens?"

You like that? Oh, you like that A LOT? Well, you may have it, Mr. Brunson, because I'm playing the role of an editor, here, but in future assignments I want to see content that sizzles. You're holding back, afraid to make a mistake. You're walking when I want to see you run.

Moving on to your second paragraph...have you counted how many times you say "neighborhoods" and "neighbors?" Well, it's repetitive.

Your first sentence in the second paragraph is not a sentence at all. It's a very long sentence fragment or a mechanically flawed sentence in need of revision.

Here, try this: change it to "some residents indicated." That fixes the whole problem.

You still don't understand why that's not a sentence the way you had it before? Well, it reads like a very long introductory phrase to...something.

Read it aloud Mr. Brunson. Tiffany--I see you're just waiting in line, so would you mind being Mr. Brunson's audience? Mr. Brunson, read that portion the way you have it. Read it to Tiffany and see how it sounds to HER ear.

(Looking at the clock on the wall while Brunson reads it aloud. Tiffany--who can be depended on for this kind of thing--agrees vigorously with my assessment)

Ah, now you hear it, too, don't you? It's like part of a song hanging in the air, waiting for more notes.

OK, we've got more students in line, here--thank you, Tiffany--so let's forge our way to the end.

I'll skip over the awkward "feed up" thing. We all make mistakes, just let it go.

I think you need to put the word "however" in front of that NEXT sentence. Try it. Just see how it reads. Note how it softens the argument, the contradiction between those two sentences? You use the word "however" later, but replace it with "but" and drop the comma.

Your phrase here concerns me: "Like I say." Seriously, you're quoting yourself in your own flier? Lose that phrase. 'Nuff said.

In regard to your final sentence...eh, "best district in Minnesota?" You really think people have that kind of DISTRICT loyalty like they have strong attachment to their neighborhood, their street, their town? Honestly, many of them will find it a revelation to learn they live in District 58B. Don't take your own feelings about District 58B and get 'em all confused with your CONSTITUENTS' feelings. (By the way, how come your website URL says "58" instead of "58B?" Were you confused about the name of the district? Well...never mind)

You need another sentence at the end to give your conclusion more "Oomph." No, sir, I'm not going to give it to you, I gave you plenty already. Struggle with it. Show me something creative. AMAZE ME, MR. BRUNSON.

Very good. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Teaching Assistant Needs A Drink

That evening, in the teacher's lounge, I would pop an Advil, slam it down with Diet Coke, and (very properly and legally) confide in one of my fellow instructors about the painful "they are feed up" error I saw in one of my student papers.

But don't worry, I would jokingly assure my comrade--and I'd dig around in "the stack" for Brunson's paper so I could read aloud from it--no, don't be concerned because "there have been many success in the Northside."

To hammer the point home about how BAD the paper was, I'd say, "That's the FIRST sentence. The LEAD sentence." There have been many success in the Northside.

"God help us," my fellow instructor would say, or something like that. Then he'd ask me about the grade.

"B plus," I'd answer. "Gotta inflate it a little bit. Do you think I want to spend half an hour in the professor's office listening to a sermon about Brunson's precious self-esteem and then see the grade revised upward, anyway? Besides, I think Brunson's problem is he doesn't proofread. It's hard to break some people of the habit of refusing to be introspective..."

(Now I'm pontificating, but my co-worker wouldn't mind...since I'm always willing to switch roles and listen to HIM pontificate)

Better Luck Next Election, Brunson

"...and there's a basic 'politician personality' which is like that. They're a painted facade, hiding a bunch of pain behind a smile, a chameleon-like personality. It's too painful to look inside, to have the obvious flaws pointed out, even by oneself. ESPECIALLY by oneself. The only way to help young Brunson is to show him that his opponents WILL SEE HIS ERRORS and will GLEEFULLY SEIZE UPON THE ERRORS. So Brunson needs to root out the errors himself if he wants to win...next time."

Here's The Cherry Of Rich Irony Atop The Political Ice Cream Sundae

Brunson's flier includes the following suggestion for schools: "Focus on the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic in our schools. Make our schools accountable for meeting these standards." He also wants to "ensure school choice" by such things as "school vouchers, home schooling, public and charter schools."

I wonder...what must have happened in his own schooling experience to make Brunson so "feed up" with the public education system?

I'm reminded of what (Brunson's fellow Republican) President George Bush said: "Is our children learning?"

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: Criminal Record Of Jason Youngmark, 33, Latest North Minneapolis "Shooting Victim With A Shaky Past"

Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

Since Matt McKinney of the Star Tribune apparently doesn't perceive it as HIS journalistic duty to fully inform the public, I am taking the task on myself from the other side of the planet. (Click here for McKinney's article)

Jason Youngmark, 33, the latest victim of North Minneapolis gun violence, had a clean record from 2001 (driving with no insurance) up until 2010, when he was charged with something exceedingly minor--parking in an alley between 2 and 6 AM. As McKinney noted in his article, the young man did hae some "struggles" early in life.

Like, um, COCAINE....


Here are the full details, minus that whole "oh, he was the best guy in the whole world" stuff that mainstream print journalists still instinctively revert to, like this was the late 1800s or something and the truth about murder victims wasn't just a few keystrokes away in online court records.

Geez.

27-CR-96-055970 YOUNGMARK, JASON ADONIS
03/19/1978 07/05/1996
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed CONT SUBS CRIME 3RD DEGREE POSSESS COCAINE

In the case above, the case was "continued for drug diversion." Jason didn't always show up when he was supposed to...there was a warrant issued at one point. In 1999, Jason finished his probation March 31, 1999. There was a $1,000 fine but it appears to have been stayed.

27-CR-99-026544 YOUNGMARK, JASON ADONIS
03/19/1978 02/12/1999
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed CARELESS DRIVING-MISD
ALCOHOL CONCENTR .10 OR MORE
ALCOHL CONCEN .10 OR MORE W/IN 2HRS

Funny, somehow this incident just before the end of his probation didn't seem to have had any real impact on Jason. He was convicted of "careless driving" but the other charges were dismissed. (Sniff sniff...does anybody else smell plea bargain?)

27-CR-99-017718 YOUNGMARK, JASON ADONIS
03/19/1978 02/23/1999
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Southdale Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed FALSE IDENTIFICATION
DRIVING AFTER REVOCATION

Sentenced to 90 days, but 80 of it was stayed. He was convicted of the false identification but the driving after revocation was dismissed. (Can't you SMELL it? I'm SURE I smell it...the pungent smell of plea bargain)

27-CR-01-088293 1011340872 YOUNGMARK, JASON ADONIS
03/19/1978 10/24/2001
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed NO INSURANCE

Pleaded not guilty. Amended his plea. Convicted. Got THREE DAYS of "sentence to service" in lieu of time. Twelve days left on his sentence STAYED. Unsupervised probation. However, Jason kept his nose clean until 2010, when he had the very minor parking in an alley conviction...the same statute also covers being parked more than 6 hours on a highway, so it could have been THAT instead.

27-CR-10-52696 2100424874 YOUNGMARK, JASON ADONIS
03/19/1978 11/12/2010
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Brookdale Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed No parking in any alley, no parking between 2-6 AM and parked exceeding 6 hour limit upon highway or (...) (original online document truncated)

Given his shaky past, I'm left to wonder "was Jason keeping out of trouble, or was he back into something bad?" (Is the conviction about where and when he was ILLEGALLY PARKED any kind of clue?)

Though the late Mr. Youngblood is to be commended for (apparently) avoiding criminal charges in the State of Minnesota for almost a decade, near the end of his life, all the same his unfortunate death falls into the same old pattern of individuals whose criminal records reveal them to be no angles and then they somehow end up dead in North Minneapolis gun violence. Seriously, are we obligated by politeness to feign shock and surprise?

However, we should be able to depend on journalists like Matt McKinney to give us these facts instead of sugar coating reality. The Star Tribune fell short on this story.

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: Murder Trial Of Edgar Barrientos, Ben Myers For The Defense...

Flickr.com Photo, "Tears Of Blood"

Some days ago, while observing the "True JACC" court room drama to determine the destiny and control of the Jordan Neighborhood association, I ducked into the murder trial of Edgar Barrientos. Ben Myers--who against all common sense still proclaims himself the Vice Chair of the Jordan Neighborhood, rather like the Reverend Jim Jones proclaimed himself somewhere up there with the Son Of God--was one of the defense attorneys.

Young Edgar Barrientos is on trial for...

...bad marksmanship, actually, which SHOULD be a criminal offense, but it's tragically all-too-common among the gangster set; far too fixated on the romance of holding, posing with, stroking, fondling a sexy weapon rather than the dull utilitarian purpose of the weapon itself.

Barrientos is accused of shooting a young man named Jesse Michelson, but the record appears to show it wasn't even Michelson that Barrientos was trying to hit. No, rather Barrientos was a terrible shot and Michelson had worse-than-terrible luck. Allegedly. All allegedly. Just go throughout the text below and sprinkle in "allegedly" where it needs to go. Thanks.

So there was my twin-brother-in-Parody-World, public figure Ben Myers, sitting at the defense table with accused murderer Edgar Barrientos, like they were BUDDIES or something.

I say! Ben has been running the neighborhood association, (into the ground) defending a murder defendant in a colorful case, getting himself quoted in the big daily paper about the fate of the Big Stop Store...is there any doubt my evil twin brother Ben Myers is a PUBLIC FIGURE?

What twists and turns of human chaos: because Edgar Barrientos launched a few badly-aimed bullets several months ago, and ends up on trial for his freedom, testimony in another trial is delayed; a trial about the fate of a neighborhood association virtually LOOTED by Ben Myers and Jerry Moore.

Can anybody see, predict, know the random and fractalizing consequences of each tiny deliberate act? Obviously not, but there are some easy rules to avoid this kind of negative chaos: don't drive around in a car shooting at other human beings, thinking you're a bad ass, thinking you're ALL THAT.

Barrientos was looking clean and spiffy in a starched shirt, a conservative haircut. He sat calmly, without a great deal of physical agitation, but two deputies were nearby, never taking their eyes off him. At moments like this I think, "How would a person run, escape, dodge, make their way out of this massive government building and to freedom?" The best I've come up with: STAIRWELLS are very important. You can't stand around waiting for an elevator. You need to run down a stairwell, and you need to run like hell.

One side of the room was almost empty, the other side packed with friends and relatives of the victim, sitting behind the prosecutor like her biggest fans. Among the spectators was a young woman, tall and willowy, not unattractive but with a hard, hard facial expression. Her age was hard to determine (as young as 15, as old as 21) and she had numerous homemade tattoos on her right leg, all names, like everybody-signs-the-birthday-card. Here's a pen. OH MY GOD WHY ARE YOU STABBING THE PEN INTO YOUR LEG?

Periodically, the young woman of indeterminate age would cradle a baby, other times she would hand the baby off to a woman who may have been her own mother, possibly the grandmother of the baby, but always the baby was cared for, fed. I never saw anybody cross with the baby, nobody less than gentle. Some of these folks were rough-looking people, but they loved their children, as decent people should. They should have never been here in court at a murder trial. The victim in this shooting did nothing wrong. He was playing football at a cousin's birthday party.

Ben Myers was asked a question by the judge and answered, "Your honor, we take no position at this time" in response to some kind of issue about adding the words "drive by shooting, murder committed in the course of..."

It was mentioned the defense had agreed not to refer to the defendant "by his first name only" during closing arguments. Yeah, like that would have worked. Nobody is going to convict a guy named EDGAR. Behind sweet, oh-so-innocent Edgar sat a woman who appeared to be either a mother or a sister. It was hard to tell. Sometimes my gut said "mother" and sometimes it was "sister."

I sat there thinking "Mother? Sister? Mother? Sister?" rather like that classic scene in the movie "Chinatown" with Jack Nicholson, click here and go to 2 minutes, 14 seconds.

The woman of indeterminate relationship sat directly behind Barrientos, wearing a sort of tightly knit fishnet blouse with shimmery highlights. I think she was trying to look conservative in the courtroom, but had some limited wardrobe choices. She had a new, complimentary hairdo: a lush cascade of brunette, with carefully applied dark blond highlights. It seemed to match her shirt. She'd taken care in her grooming and outfit, and yet the overall impact was...not what pleases judges in court. Not careful, prudent, conservative, socially-contributing. Just a bit on the trashy side.

Though she usually kept her gaze fixed on Barrientos, I never saw him turn once to acknowledge her. Self-centered little prick. Like he's the only one in the world with FEELINGS.

The defense attorney who wasn't Ben--looking like an alter boy, all grown up, every brunette hair in place--rose to say he had an "unusual request" which was "hard to ask," but he wanted to ask for the rules about children in the gallery, specifically in regard to the baby, "if it begins to cry."

Yes, "it."

Like the sweet little baby was an annoying, yappy puppy.

The judge--who said she has three children herself--said the baby is a "close family member" to the victim. Furthermore, in the last few days, though the child was often present in the court room, "I've heard nary a peep from the child." Her Honor agreed, however, that if the child cries in "more than a low murmur" that somebody must take the child outside.

In the hallway, I spoke long enough to some of the victim's family members to merely obtain the name of the defendant, a handle to figure out much of the case. I mentioned that I was only in court because Ben Myers is involved in another lawsuit, and the suit in question was about the neighborhood association.

A young woman--possibly 15, with a sort of an "A plus student from a tough background" personality, jumped into the spokesperson role, and said of Ben Myers, "Everything he says is just STUPID."

I had to bite my tongue to avoid answering, "Well, you are biased. That's not entirely true. There are times, for example, when he's quoting ME."

The jury came in, and for the benefit of the historical record I took note of their composition, which was 8 white females, 4 white males, 1 Asian male, one male who may have been Latino or white, hard to tell. They looked like this:

# The Total Hottie. A brunette in her early 20s, with a white scarf looped through her belt, trailing at her hip, pirate wench style. She wore a black dressy suit with a HOT PINK top. A lip curling look on her face during jury instructions seemed to say, "Oh, it's all so much to understand!" but could I forgive her flaws?

A thousand times I could forgive those flaws.

# The Grandmother. She sat next to the total hottie, keeping a gentle and helpful eye on her. In her early 60s, spectacles, actually sitting with her hands primly folded in her lap as though she'd been taught to sit like that, long ago, taught these things along with cleaning one's plate, laying the knife and fork just so in the middle of the plate in the shape of a cross. She wore a blue, long-sleeved shirt that covered her ample, matriarchal body like a tent, a white collar emerging at the top.

Voted most likely to invite all her fellow jurors to Thanksgiving dinner.

# The Freshman. A young man, possibly still in his late teens, certainly no older than early to mid-20s. He has reddish hair, a thin face and build. His face is not animated. He sits dutifully, as one would sit through classes not particularly enjoyed, but necessary. He's going to send Edgar to hell in a hand basket. You watch.

# Mr. Mustache. A white mustached man, white hair, wearing a blue jacket even though the room isn't THAT cold. He has a pen handy in his pocket. Something about him says "take charge personality," like a manager or foreman.

# White female hottie number 2. There was something familiar about her face and eyeglasses and then I realized...Oh. My. Word. If my friend Connie Nompelis had a sister ten years younger, this could be her. Same face, same hair, same glasses. Blonde, thin, very attentive. If she has the same attitudes as Connie, she'll put that little (expletive) Edgar away for life, and not lose a moment's sleep, though she'll really need a CIGARETTE after.

# The Hot Housewife. Mid-30s, white (all 8 females on the jury are white) with a long, lush auburn ponytail, understated gold hoop earings. Not Sarah Palin hot, but...pretty hot for (I suspect) a soccer mom.

# The Working Woman. Female, possibly mid-30s, jean jacket, straight blonde hair, not particularly dolled up. She looks tired. And, at times, another look flickers across her face: resentment.

# The Gray Man. A white male in his mid-50s, maybe, with gray hair, a gray shirt, striking patrician facial features. It is a character-filled face, like that of early American presidents. He looks like somebody who would be talkative, tell funny stories over beer, beer, hey, how about another beer?

Most likely to compare the defendant to no-accounts thugs from his own high school days. Sigh? Where are they now? Mostly dead or in prison.

# Mr. Blinky. An Asian male in his early 30s, he blinks constantly in a nervous way, chews gum.

# Mr. Five O'Clock Shadow. A white male, lanky, early 50s. He wears a grim expression. You would, too, if you were about to send a man to prison for a long, long time.

# Hottie Number 3. Shoulder length, slightly wavy blonde hair, black blouse. What's the deal with this jury? Did the lawyers use the drivers license PHOTOS instead of REGISTRATIONS? This is the hottest jury I've ever seen!

# The Working Man. A young male, possibly Latino but he could be white, late 20s, small in stature, casually dressed in blue collar plaid.

# The Bundle of Energy. A white female in her 30s, with an oft-changing facial expression, she seems not quite happy with the role of always being forced to listen, not talk or ask questions. She has short brunette hair, which seems to crackle with frizzy energy. Though she seems white, she may be one of those folks who can lay claim to some Native American background. I see opinons, questions about this case locked up in her, wanting to get loose.

# The Nun. A white female in a dark suit, with a dark hair covering like a nun or certain conservative Christian religious sects, black glasses. She looks like an extra in the movie "Doubt."

I sat through some of the final arguments. It was a lot of stuff about a car driving around and people aboard up to no good, about people with nicknames like Smoky and Scrappy.

My impression was the case required a meticulous piecing-together. Johnny Cocharan might be able to create reasonable doubt out of thin air. But take it from his twin brother: Ben Myers is no Johnny Cocharan. I'm the one in the family named after Johnny Cocharan.

Ben was named after...well, Benzadrine. That's really all I want to say about THAT. Honor thy father and mother, even if mom was doing A LOT OF DRUGS when she found out she was pregnant with Ben, too.

In any case...

Odds of Edgar Barrientos walking from these charges: 1 in 14.

Odds of me NOT TELLING MOM ON MY KNUCKLEHEAD TWIN BROTHER FOR DEFENDING AN ACCUSED MURDERER.

1 in a BILLION.

Bond Document Reveals Much About Harvest Prep, Some Details About Eric Yusef Mahmoud's Involvement In A Mortgage Fraud...

Creative stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

I will probably have to preface any story about bond issues at Harvest Prep/SEED Academy with this disclaimer: bonds are not one of my areas of knowledge. But there is a story here, (the Star Tribune thinks there is a story, also) and even without expertise in bonds I know that sentences like "The Borrower has previously committed monetary and other defaults on several monetary obligations..." are worrisome.

So I will throw the relevant documents out in the world for public scrutiny and I will highlight what I see as worrisome sections of the documents.

Click here for extensive document on the Harvest Prep bonds.

According to a regular reader of mine who knows a little something about bonds, the following...

JNS BLOG EXCLUSIVE: Hot Fifth Ward Credentials Committee Battle Over "Kenya 8" Delegates

Photos By John Hoff

At Thursday night's 5th Ward DFL Credentials Committee meeting, a furious parliamentary battle was waged over challenges to Kenya McKnight delegates. The way it shook out; some "Kenya 8" delegates/alternates passed through the Credentials Committee seive despite opposition from the Don Samuels camp--which was outvoted by a slightly greater number of Kenya McKnight supporters--but McKnight "Mystery Delegate" Elliot (He Doesn't Live Here) Cooke didn't pass.

Two of the Kenya 8 are still having their credentials investigated, but the "investigation" appears to be in the hands of a McKnight supporter, Mike Fedor.

What happened at the committee meeting hardly ends the battle: apparently, credentials can be disputed on the floor during Saturday's convention, and it appears the Samuels and McKnight camps are prepared to scrap and slug it out over delegate credentials, particularly in light of a written DFL "investigation" which calls into question the integrity of either Kenya McKnight or Brian Bushay over who-did-what with 8 supposed "letters" about individuals wanting to be delegates.

I was the only media present at last night's meeting and here is my firsthand account...

It is an incomplete account based on notes. Many things were said; I am concentrating on what I perceived to be the important parts, but your committee highlights milage may vary.

This Is What Democracy Looks Like

The meeting took place at North Commons Park, in the park building. It was as grassy as grass roots gets: a fussy toddler made his presence known early in the meeting, at one point the meeting proceedings were interrupted by a loud verbal dispute among youth hanging out in the park building; a perpetual occurrence at North Minneapolis community meetings, which are often held in park buildings.

The committee warmed up with a discussion about Earnestine Brailsford-Walton, and the issue of whether she was a delegate or an alternate. This was apparently one of those things where somebody--out of politeness, a desire not to be TOO forward--was told something like "we're allowed 28 and we have 29" so Earnestine said, oh, I don't need to be a delegate. A successful motion was made to put Earnestine in the position of second alternate. (There was already a "first alternate" position)

Now the committee took a collective breath. Now came the warm-up appetizer of conflict--Elliot Cooke--who preceded the 8-course dinner of democratic dispute: the Kenya 8 investigation, the "missing" letters, the word of Brian Bushay against Kenya McKnight.

He Doesn't Live Here, But Mail Comes, Sometimes

The issue was Mr. Elliot Cooke, who had been called about whether he was a delegate, whether he had been at the meeting, but Cooke had not called back, had "made no overtures," and--as Jackie Cherryhomes pointed out--there was still the matter of the woman who lived at the address who said Cooke didn't live there, although, yes, she was known to get mail for him, sometimes.

He was at the caucus, Jerry Moore said, casually, as though this was obviously beyond dispute, not even really worth talking about.

"We aren't real sure," Cherryhomes said.

"He was there," Moore said, with a shrug.

Cherryhomes said, "bottom line," we don't know him and we can't say for sure. There is some notation by his name on the green sheet. There is a statement that he doesn't live in the house.

A motion was made by Dottie--a member of the Jordan Area Community Council, a blogger strongly aligned with the victorious "New Majority" faction which ousted Executive Director Jerry Moore, he who was even-at-that-moment co-chairing this credentials committee meeting--that Elliot Cooke's name be removed (from the list of delegates and alternates). The motion was seconded. Now the battle was finally at hand.

Mike Fedor--who appears aligned with the McKnight camp--said he was "rather curious about this one" and he wondered about the appropriateness of keeping Cooke on the delegate list and making a challenge at a later point. This, Mike said, "constitutes a form of fraud" if Cooke lied. Cherryhomes said if Cooke showed up, there would be an opportunity to deal with that, and preferred removing his name from the list.

Jerry Moore spoke up, opposing the motion. Moore said Cooke was "in the building" (once again, in that tone of things beyond beyond dispute because he, Moore, is saying these things) and Cooke should be a delegate, not excluded. If Cooke shows up, send him to the credentials committee.

Kip Browne--chair of the victorious "New Majority" JACC faction which ousted Jerry Moore--spoke up at that point. Later in the night, I heard there were daggers going back and forth between the eyes of Moore and Browne, though it wasn't apparent from where I was sitting. Browne said evidence was taken, Cooke was given an opportunity to come forward and provide the evidence, and Kip thought it was highly relevant that Cooke DIDN'T come forward and say, "hey, I want to be a delegate."

This, Browne said, is EVIDENCE. If he himself were challenged, he would at least CALL BACK. Cooke doesn't live there, Browne said, and should not be seated.

Another committee member spoke up and said there is enough evidence and--in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event Mr. Cooke would show his face at the convention--he can challenge the ruling.

Mike Fedor responded that "every year, we try to avoid unpleasant scenes in the hallways" when "somebody thinks they are a delegate and shows up, but they are NOT a delegate" and said it can "create an ugly scene."

Another committee member--I knew her face, knew her to be among the McKnight supporters on the committee--said, "He do WE know that HE knows he is being challenged?" Kip Browne responded that we don't need to "go into his mind to know what he thinks," we have evidence that we can consider. Mike Fedor said we have nothing but the "dead ends" that our investigation has led us to.

Jerry Moore speculated that a "transposed number" could be at the root of this. Another committee member pointed out, well, that doesn't account for how mail is coming to the residence where Cooke DOESN'T LIVE. Dottie pointed out when the phone picks up, it says "This is Elliot Cooke."

(JNS note: I've called the phone number. It actually says, "This is Elliot.")

The question was called--though there was no vote on whether to call the question, like you would with real, undiluted, full-strength parlimentiary procedure--and the vote was taken. The motion to remove Cooke carried on a voice vote. There were some votes against the motion, but the voice vote was clear enough, from where I was sitting. No roll call was taken.

Who You Gunna Believe, Me Or Your Lyin' Eyes?

Next came the "Kenya Eight" challenges. Co-Chair Jackie Cherryhomes said she had copies for "everybody" of "what was sent by the DFL," which is to say, the written summary of the DFL investigation into allegations made by 5th Ward Candidate Kenya McKnight that she "hand delivered" 8 absentee delegate letters to Brian Bushay, which Bushay emphatically says NEVER HAPPENED and he would remember if it did. Bushay was seated there, in front of me. (See photo above, white-haired man in blue shirt)

He looked, I thought, like somebody who decided against becoming a pastor...because there was just too much emphasis on getting money from the flock. He looked pained. He was very quiet, but seemed to be trying to suppress an agonized look, like somebody was making him sit on hot coals.

As the stack of DFL investigation documents passed by, "a copy took itself to me," as they would say in some of the romance languages.

Jackie Cherryhomes spoke up amid the silence, the reading of the document, and said there was a particularly clear instance of one person who might be "handled separately." Kip Browne asked for a few minutes for everybody to read over the document, which consisted of a single page email to from DFL member David Weinlick to Jackie Cherryhomes, cc'ed to Nick Wallace and Amanda Tempel, bearing the subject line "credentials questions in Ward 5." The email was sent at 10:33 a.m., Monday, March 23.

Here, word for word, is what the email said:

...
Based on our conversation last week, I have tried to gather information regarding the eight people named in the letter from Kenya McKnight. As of this time, I have still been unable to reach half the households involved. I have left messages at the Jones and Howard households, but have not received any response. I was able to reach the Howard household by phone on one occasion, but when I mentioned that I was calling about the DFL precinct caucuses, the line went dead.

As a result, I have no further information to corroborate the claim stated in Kenya's letter that those individuals submitted letters. I do not have evidence to contradict that claim either.

I have gathered additional information in conversations with Brian Bushay and Kenya McKnight, but no clear answers have emerged. Kenya did explain that three of the individuals--Kizzy Washington, Kashanti Johnson, and Charlotte Onsoti--were actually at caucuses, but had to leave early. Kneya explained that they had to leave early, so the letters were submitted so they could be considered for delegate positions. Kenya stated that they had registered using the organge cards at caucus night. No registration cards were found for any of these three, which directly contradicts Kenya's explanation of events.

When I reached Kizzy Washington, she had no knowledge of any letter pertaining to caucus night, which does not fit with the explanation given by Kenya. Although it is possible that Kizzy was confused about the issue because she didn't send a letter before caucuses, she offered no information about her attendance on caucus night to corroborate Kenya's explanation.

When I reached Kashanti Johnson, he had no knowledge of any letter pertaining to caucus night, which does not fit with the explanation given by Kenya. Although it is possible that he was confused about the issue because he didn't send a letter before caucuses, he offered no information about his attendance on caucus night to corroborate Kenya's explanation.

When I reached Lorraine Smaller, she corrobarated Kenya's story that she had submitted a letter regarding precinct caucuses. When she became sick and was unable to attend caucuses, Kenya came to her house to pick up a letter to deliver to caucuses.

Kenya states very clearly that she handed all eight letters to Brian Bushay, who was helping to run the site on the night of precinct caucuses. She did not explain why she gave them to Brian rather than delivering them to the precinct caucus meetings. Brian asserts that he never received anything from Kenya on precinct caucus night, although he was stationed at a table near the spot where Kenya was getting attendees.

I have found no evidence to support Kenya's claim that Brian received the letters, although I have found nothing that can disprove it either. Nobody has provided any evidence that suggests that letters for the eight individuals in question ever arrived at their precinct caucuses.

At this time, I can find no firm evidence to either affirm or deny the claim that letters were ever submitted by Bonnie Jones, Grover Jones, Cyreta Howard, or Lois Howard. The only thing that is clear is that those letters are not found in the material gathered at the Ward 5 precinct caucuses. Lorraine Smaller has confirmed that she gave a letter to Kenya, but it does not appear to have been delivered to the precinct caucus, and nobody has claimed that it did get delivered.

I cannot find any evidence to confirm the attendance of Kizzy, Kashanti and Charlotte at their precinct caucuses, and the registration cards that Kenya claims they completed are not included among the other registration cards from Ward 5.

The convention will need to consider whether it wants to override the election of delegates at the precinct caucus and seat these people, or whether it will accept the rosters of delegates as they were elected on precinct caucus night.
...

During the long, silent reading of the letter, an individual in a black beret entered the room and set next to Jerry Moore. I've never seen a beret worn at such an angle; it practically covered the left side of his face and created a Mohawk-like effect on his head. I wondered how he keeps the beret from falling off.

One of the McKnight supporters spoke up and said--despite what the investigative document said--there is evidence that Kizzy and Kishanti were there. Kip Browne spoke and said now we have gone outside the cody (presumably the committee) to collect evidence, so this is the evidence that we have. Cherryhomes AGAIN pointed out that the Lorraine Smaller issue is more clear, and perhaps THAT can be addressed FIRST?

A Chaotic Fight Over Caucus Chaos

I thought I could perceive relief on the committee. Yes, indeed, deal with the Smaller issue first, before somebody rings the bell for Wrestle-Mania.

Meanwhile, Beret Dude was jumping into the meeting--I learned his name was Antwon, spelling unknown--and said Cyreta Howard and Lois Howard are his cousins, perhaps he could call them and resolve matters. He jumped up to go to the hallway and make the call. Cherryhomes or somebody else on the committee stopped him, saying, "We are not at that point."

Kip Browne made a motion to "accept the investigation." The motion was seconded by Nicole Doran, pictured above with her child, Clifton Doran III, known as "Tre."

A "substitute motion" was brought forth to deal with Lorraine Smaller, this motion was opposed by Nicole Doran and Kip Browne, but made its way to the table. There was momentary confusion--voiced by Doran--about which motion was on the table. Meanwhile, Jerry Moore was moving in and out of the room and--I strongly suspected--making cell phone calls to round up committee members, evidence, etc.

Jackie Cherryhomes--a Samuels supporter--had suggested putting the easier-to-resolve Smalls matter before the committee first, even over the opposition of Kip Browne, another Samuels supporter. Yes, this seemed like the easier, conflict-avoiding-for-the-moment kind of path to take.

However, in my observation, it was a grave tactical error. The meeting dragged on and some McKnight supporters came pouring in late, taking seats at the table, one bringing a baby along. The slim margin the Samuels camp had enjoyed earlier in the meeting (during the Elliot Cooke vote) ebbed away.

Nicole Doran--a Samuels supporter--spoke up in favor of Smaller, who was very likely a McKnight supporter. Doran said she had a "comfort level" with Smaller, because Smaller had been a delegate before." Doran said she was willing to accept Smaller's statement that a letter was given, but by voting to accept Smaller Doran wanted to make the record, here: she was NOT agreeing the letter was ever DELIVERED.

Jerry Moore abstained from the motion with Smaller, otherwise Smaller was unanimously elected.

Now Black Beret Cell Phone Guy's pressing issue returned to the forefront: could he please call his cousins? Browne pointed out the Smalls motion had been dispensed with, and his motion was now on the floor, the motion to accept the results of the DFL investigation.

Jackie Cherryhomes says perhaps what is being put forward is a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to send Antwon out in the hallway to call his cousins.

At this point in the meeting, by my rough count, late arrivals had tipped the potential votes in the room to McKnight.

Things got messy and hard to follow. I think the committee may have voted on whether to send Antwon out in the hall, with Browne opposed and insisting on formal procedure. Antwon ended up in the hallway, making his calls. Discussion turned to whether cards were filled out by Kissy and Kishanti; did they fill out the yellow card? (Sorry, I'm unable to figure out why there was talk of a "yellow" card in the committee, and an "orange" card in the investigaton document. This point wasn't raised)

Doran said she didn't see any evidence of the body voting to make Kissy and Kishanti delegates. Bushay tried to speak up--he was told to wait his turn. Browne spoke and tried to insist on formal procedure. Browne said he was willing to withdraw his motion and make another motion. He moved that Kissy Washington NOT BE SEATED.

At some point discussion turned to a Mr. Ford, and what the instance of Mr. Ford proves about that night, and who did what. Bushay managed to get his turn to speak and said "my behavior is being called into question" and on that basis he should be able to speak, to defend his integrity. Yes, Bushay said, Mr. Ford filled out a card BUT HIS ADDRESS WAS NOT WITHIN THE PRECINCT, so that was a different matter entirley though, yes, Ford had been in the caucus and filled out a card. But as for the other people he--Bushay--was ALLEGED to have taken a card from, Bushay said, "That didn't happen."

Bushay said he went through the cards, one by one, and asked, "Did anybody else want to be a delegate who didn't give me their cards? Bushay said nobody said they did. Sure, several others came in, but they said "No" in regard to being a delegate.

Suddenly, there was a loud and angry argument OUTSIDE the room, among the youth milling around in the park building. Kip stood up and closed the door to the room, but the argument came right through the door, anyway. Doran--whose child, Tre, was outside the room being watched by Megan Goodmundson--said she wanted to get up from the committee meeting, she wanted to "go get Megan and the baby."

Doran came back a moment later. Things had calmed down outside. Nobody came to blows.

In the meeting, there was talk of "chaos" at the caucus, during the process. Were they there? Did they fill out a card? Were they voted in as delegates? Somebody started to raise a point making a comparison to a "Michael Guest." At that point, Black Beret Cell Phone Guy walked in, and said loudly, "She wrote the letter and she gave it to Kenya!"

Discussion about the motion to deny the challenge of Kissy was laid aside. Jerry Moore grabbed the phone to confirm what was said. One of the committee members--a female voice--piped up, rather quietly, saying BOTH the committee chairs might want to talk to the person on the phone, after all...

Jerry more said a few things into the phone, briefly. I heard Jerry say, "She's at church?" Then he took the phone away from his ear and in the same motion pressed the power button to terminate the call.

Moore then asserted the Howards were indeed bona fide, for he had talked to somebody on the phone. Moore started speechifying, saying, "This is a cumbersome process to people who aren't used to it." Moore said some people might hang up, thinking, after all, it is a bill collector on the phone.

Kip Browne spoke up and said part of the problem is the coordinator (apparently Moore?) didn't pass out copies of the call during the caucus. This statement raised yells from the McKnight corner of the room. "No personal attacks!" somebody yelled.

Kip Browne said he does not see clear and convincing evidence that a letter was tendered and on that basis Kissy Washington should not be seated. Dottie spoke up and said it is of concern that we should be NEUTRAL, we should look at evidence. It is not a matter of somebody not UNDERSTANDING. Dottie said we should "stop second guessing, be evidence based, instead of getting off into the emotional."

Call The...What's It Called, Again?

Moore called the question. There was no vote on calling the question. All in favor of rejecting Kissy Washington? The motion failed. By my count, it was 4 to 6, but it may have been 4 to 7.

Jerry Moore made a motion that Kissy Washington be an alternate. Motion seconded. Moore added that Kissy should be LAST ALTERNATE in that precinct.

Browne said the issue is not whether she was there, or whether she filled out a card, the issue was whether there was A LETTER. So how do you not know about a letter you say you wrote and gave to Kenya?

Mike Fedor said maybe the confusion comes from the interpretation of "letter." Maybe they filled out some kind of FORM, and they didn't think of that as a LETTER.

Doran asked, "When the letters were SUPPOSEDLY handed to Bushay, was it all at once? One at a time?" Moore shook his head tiredly and said, "I don't know."

A woman in a khaki hat with a rhinestone peace sign spoke, saying we should seat people who WANT to be delegates, and MAKE THAT CLEAR. The question was called, Kissy was seated as a "last alternate" despite the fact she "offered no information about her attendance on caucus night."

Now a motion was put forward to seat Kashanti Johnson as "last alternate."

Kip--now reduced to "making the record" because the vote count was obvious even before the votes were taken--said "the question is not their intent but whether they did the things they have to do to be there."

Jerry said, "THIS IS BACK IN OUR HANDS" and "we have to make some kind of decision." Cell Phone Guy Antwon now had his turn on the speaking order and said he wanted to do...OK, that thing that you do? Call the...how is it?

"CALL THE QUESTION!" yelled one of the McKnight supporters, helpfully. Attorney At Law Kip Browne had a look on his face like he'd crashed on Tatooine and Jawas were fighting over the shiny, high-tech components of his X-wing fighter.

"Call the question!" said Antwon. Admittedly, there was little point in having a vote as per correct parliamentary procedure.

Kishanti--who "had no knowledge of any letter pertaining to caucus night" and who "offered no information about his attendance on caucus night to corroborate Kenya (McKnight's) explanation" was seated as "last alternate" in Precinct 5-5 on a voice vote by a committee voting strictly along favored candidate lines.

Now there was a motion to seat Charlotte Onsoti. Moore said, in a resigned tone, "She did not run, she was not elected." Onsoti did not indicate she wanted to be a delegate, Moore said. Kip Browne moved to reject the challenge, i.e, to reject Onsoti being seated. Kip Browne started to say something like, "It sounds like she was THERE but it doesn't sound like she had the intent to be a DELEGATE."

Jerry Moore said, "I will save you some time, can we just make her a caucus attendee?"

The McKnight "challenge" over the issue of Charlotte Onsoti was unanimously rejected. Then Jerry made a motion to have Onsoti be an "attendee" and Kip Browne seconded Jerry's motion. At that moment, world peace broke out and, yes, we really could all get along.

Now Nicole Doran (trying to be helpful, but she really should have left the motions to Kip Browne who, unfortunately, had made it look all-too-easy) made a motion to reflect that Bonnie and Grover Jones "attended their caucus."

Jerry Moore spoke up and said, well, they had not, in fact, attended the caucus. Doran withdrew her motion. Ouch. Parliamentary faux pas.

Jerry Moore made a motion--which was seconded--to seat the Howards. The motion passed. As for the Joneses, Moore made a motion to "continue the investigation" into the Joneses. Mike Fedor said he had "nothing better to do tomorrow" and offered to do his best to get ahold of them. Kip Browne said he wanted to find out about THE LETTER vis-a-vis the Joneses, not their INTENT. Somebody said it was a "key question" to ask, "Did you fill out a letter or a form that you wanted to be a delegate."

A "Goofy Deal" With The Challenges, Pleas For Divine Intervention

Doran said "This whole thing wasn't properly approached from the get-go, and in addition to that, "we're seating people who said they NEVER WROTE IT." (A letter) Doran said, "This whole thing is convoluted."

Cherryhomes said, "I've been doing this since I was 17, and I've never seen as goofy a deal as this with the challenges." Cherryhomes said "we really need to make some recommendations about PROCESS."

Jerry Moore said somebody at the DFL--and he specifically said "DFL"--was "too Chicken Little" (sic) to deal with this, and so they have "pushed it back on us" and said "we didn't get what we wanted out of the report." Moore said the problem is "people don't know the process."

Doran replied, "The problem is people can TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT (people not knowing the process) and push people into things."

"We're avoiding the issue, here, people," Jerry said.

Cherryhomes said, "We all have to work with each other Saturday (at the convention) and on."

Kip said, "We don't need to go into a lot of rhetoric and side agendas to find out if Michael goes out and asks these questions." (Which was the motion on the floor at that moment)

Kip Browne called the question; let Mike Fedor go out and collect evidence. All agreed, and loudly.

A discussion took place about how, even with this committee meeting, there isn't enough order and process. For example, there is NO SIGN IN SHEET? Where, exactly, is the sign-in sheet?

There was talk about how the information should have been handled DIFFERENTLY, and how one person--I didn't catch who was saying this, but it was a female--had BEGGED for the information to be handled differently. It wasn't clear what she was saying, because it wasn't being said directly. Was it something to do with WHO handled the info? Angry yelling broke out. Somebody said, "Well, if we're going to PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE!!!!" Yelling. Notes and memory don't capture it all.

A McKnight supporter was granted the floor and said this committee needed "divine intervention," because of all the "direspecting each other," all the "talking over each other." A yellow sign-in sheet started to unobtrusively circulated. Well, THAT problem got solved.

The agenda--for this committee still had one--provided an opportunity to step away from the hurt feelings. Arguably, the McKnight people had carried the day, but had they? The messy, ugly details--the inability to get to the bottom of whether 8 letters, all originals, no copies made--had REALLY been "hand delivered" to Brian Bushay, like Kenya McKnight said--was unresolved.

Furthermore, floor challenges during the convention itself still potentially loomed, and that would play out in front of a much bigger audience.

Really BIG Sign In Sheets. All In Favor?

The committee voted to have REALLY BIG SIGN-IN SHEETS. The committee voted on floor passes, and accepted an idea from Kip Browne to make the floor passes pink in recognition of breast cancer awareness.

There was a discussion about issuing "press passes" to kids from the Kwanzaa church, but it was decided not to call these "press passes," because press isn't allowed on the convention floor and members of the press--like the blogger listening intently in the corner at that moment, though this wasn't SAID--would be wanting some, too. So it was agreed that the passes would be called "Kwanzaa church youth passes."

Thus the credentials committee--which had seen the messy results of a chaotic caucus colliding with raw partisanship--voted to allow a whole bunch of young children to be on the convention floor during the process.

Well, the DFL is the party of inclusiveness, after all.

The committee adjourned, and just about everybody sat down to the task of making convention badges, side-by-side, like they were student government buddies or something.

"True JACC" Lawsuit In The Jordan Neighborhood: Jerry Moore Takes The Stand, Takes The Fifth, And Then Takes Off (Part Two)

Photo By John Hoff, January 14, 2009

Perched delicately on the stand, like a pet cockatoo amid filthy, crap-stained papers, former JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore proceeded to criticize the Neighborhood Revitalization Program for its wicked desire to, well....revitalize neighborhoods, I guess.

Moore said JACC had been "heavily dependent" on NRP funding, but Moore wanted to transition into having more "private donors" because he thought such dependance on NRP was "dangerous" and put the organization "under the barrel," by which he presumably meant "under the gun."

(Regular readers, feel free to insert in-jokey remarks about "The Queen's English")

Moore said "policy makers will try to push the organization in a particular direction" so, for this reason, seeking private donors seemed the better option. Moore talked about some of the tensions in the neighborhood, saying...

"Many of the residents are afraid of our young people."

It wasn't clear what Moore meant by "our." Clearly, he couldn't have meant ALL young people in North Minneapolis. He certainly didn't mean my high-achieving math geek son coming over for visitation every other weekend, extended periods in the summer, and certain holidays. He probably doesn't mean the three young children of Hawthorne Neighborhood Chair Peter Teachout who endured the terror of their father's truck being torched by CRACKHEADS in the dead of the night on the Fourth of July. I should probably mention the Teachout family has one more child on the way. I doubt if he means the children of Don Samuels, the children of Anderson and Lisa Mitchell. 

In any case, there was the sweeping, all-encompassing phrase: "our" young people.

Because of the fear of "our young people," Moore said the neighborhood looked at programs like the "juvenile detention alternative."

There were, however, problems with JACC. The organization was on some kind of "probation" with the McKnight Foundation. There was an issue about the turnover of the Executive Directors. Under the leadership of Jerry Moore and the Ben Myers faction, JACC wanted to emphasize their "youth programs" instead of "the NRP stuff."

"Neighborhood groups can be self-destructive," Moore pontificated. "Dollars are used to control individuals." Asked what that means specifically, Moore referred to the City of Minneapolis gaining control of neighborhoods through NRP funds.

"NRP is trying to exclude people of color," Jerry declared.

Somewhere near this point came the noon break, and the defendants took lunch at a nearby cafe. Council Member Don Samuels joined the group, and was given a seat of honor at the head of the table. Not ordering anything to eat himself, Samuels accepted some leftovers from another person's plate.

"It takes a village to feed Don Samuels," quipped Megan Goodmundson.

This is something I've noticed about the intensely-bonded individuals who are part of the "pro-city" point of view in the tightly-knit neighborhood associations, the people working every day to bring about revitalization instead of urban decay. They will literally give you the food off their plate.

Back in court after lunch, Plaintiff Attorney Jill Clark cackled and then asked David Schooler, "What's your new secret papers, Mr. Schooler?" in a tone that might suggest they were BUDDIES. Kelly Browne sat and read "Bridge of Courage" about political oppression in Guatemala, though she apparently knew in her heart she needed to read the manual to her new washer and dryer, sitting in her purse, unread.

With Jerry back on the stand, sipping water with the lingering lips one might take to a glass of Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon, Jerry Moore said there had been discussions in 2008 about declining to take "CPED" funds from the City of Minneapolis. The reason was the "organization leaders" (by which Jerry apparently meant the Ben Myers faction, at that time in the majority) saw CPED as having too many stipulations on the dollars.

"When did the 2008 CPED contract expire?" Clark asked.

"The last day of December, 2008," Moore answered.

"By mid-January, 2009, was there a new CPED agreement?" Clark asked.

"No," answered Moore.

Clark let the answer linger in the air, as though she had just gotten somewhere important. Oh, yes, the takeover by the Kip Brown faction in January, 2009 was ALL TOO CONVENIENTLY TIMED, now wasn't it?

Yeah, kind of like fighting the hijackers in the cockpit before they could fly that sucker into the White House.

Moore spoke about the numerous grievances filed by Dan Rother and Dennis Wagner. Wagner had about 30 grievances, Moore said. One of the grievances concerned Moore's eligibility to be the Executive Director, and the eligibility of board members. There were requests for ledgers to show expenditures check-by-check, line-by-line.

Addressing the finances in a way he apparently never did while Executive Director, Moore testified there had been discussions with the Ackerberg Group about JACC's "inability" to pay rent at the "JACC House" on 2009 James Ave. N. The idea was raised of moving out of 2009 James Ave. N. Moore said he didn't see the point of having so much space.

"Did you neglect to submit expense reimbursements to NRP?" Clark asked.

No, Moore said, he did not. He talked about the responsibilities of the accountant, clearly shifting the responsibility to her, then caveated by saying there were "a few months where the accountant had a death in the family" and "things fell behind." Seemingly defending the accountant, Moore managed to shift virtually all the blame to her and the dying family member, all the while using SUCH a sympathetic tone.

"Did you learn of conduct by Anne McCandless around the Otto Bremer funds?" asked Clark.

Yes, Moore said, McCandless (dared to demand) a copy of the report, and she communicated that "funds were being misspent." Moore said McCandless should call HIM with her concerns, but he "never got a call from McCandless." This testimony produced muted laughter from McCandless. The contempt in that room for Jerry Moore hung thick on the "groom's side" of the court room.

"Who solicited $400 from NRP to reprint the elections slate?" asked Clark.

That would be Kip Browne, Moore answered.

"What was the relationship between Robert Miller and Anne McCandless in the Fall of 2008?"

Over heresay objections by Schooler--overruled--Moore said McCandless threw a fundraising party for Miller's (abortive) Mayoral campaign against R.T. Rybak. The relationship between Miller and McCandless was apparently cohesive, from Moore's point of view. Anne McCandless would talk to Bob Miller and soon would come a letter, a phone call. Miller sent a letter "chastizing" the board for a decision they made about Moore's employment.

Clark asked about working to clarify the tax status of the JACC-owned "probation house." Moore said he had "several discussions" about that topic and he was "hopeful" that eventually JACC could get the taxes waived. Because of his meeting with "Mr. Cosgrove," Moore said there was "a plan in place" to work with the City Assessor on the tax issue.

"What was JACC's position in regard to the Minneapolis Advantage Program?" Clark asked, referencing a program which provides down payment assistance to home buyers, with the idea of turning empty, dangerous, boarded-up houses into vital, safe, healthy homes. Moore didn't agree with the program because good credit ("A credit") was needed to quality. So the proposal didn't pass the Executive Board. It was bounced back to committee.

"Some" thought this program was "a repopulation or regentrification tool," Moore said, and that "JACC wanted a tool to touch more than just a certain population." Jerry found the Minneapolis Advantage program "inequitable."

Skipping around in her questions quite a bit, Clark returned to the subject of Dan Rother's inquiries and grievances. Moore said he was doing "extra work" because of Rother, and Rother would call "early in the morning, and late at night." Jerry felt like he was Rother's "personal secretary" or something. Jerry went so far as to research IRS guidelines about "harassment of a non-profit." In between unlimited HBO at the JACC office, lunch at the Monte Carlo, and plenty of pizza, Moore mulled over the situation with Rother and thought how it seemed like "a ploy to make sure no work could get done."

"How did people conduct themselves at meetings?" Clark asked.

Shouting, Moore answered. Yelling. He'd never been on a board like this. People were told to "shut up and sit down" and claimed "I was threatened by people." On the other hand, Moore said, there were times people were "cool and calm."

Claiming he was "fearful" of Dan Rother--a gregarious gay man who got fixated on the notion that he was, oh gee, entitled to look at the JACC books, being on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS and all--Jerry sought a harassment/restraining order against Mr. Rother after an incident of "standing, gesturing, pointing" which made Jerry Moore feel "fearful." Rother had been "all up in my space" and "dipping into my private life." Rother had been trying to contact Jerry by phone, and Jerry pointed out "I was doing other work outside my job," including the Northside Marketing Task Force.

(Moore has reportedly been removed as the chair of the Task Force)

MOORE said that ROTHER said that MOORE said Stu Ackerberg's group was "a bunch of faggots," which Moore denied saying. The sense of this controversy having some aspects of a playground dispute certainly lingered in the air near THAT moment. In the hearing over the restraining order, Moore claimed the judge thought Rother was "pushing it" and blaming Jerry for stuff going on with JACC. Moore said the judge spoke to Rother and warned him. All these things Jerry said in a somewhat forceful tone, making his point. The point about how the restraining order was, ultimately, not granted....that part Jerry kind of mumbled, like an afterthought.

This part he said forcefully:

THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE FIGUREHEADS AND HAVE TITLES BUT THE GRUNT WORK GETS PASSED TO THE STAFF.

TO BE CONTINUED....This coverage is only possible by donations, see PayPal button, and sorry to be a bother but...bloggers can't live on air and water like a spider fern.