Specific Reply to Luther Krueger: > Further: " Biernat's actions were the equivalent of one judge arranging for > the police to put political pressure on other judges sitting on the > decision-making panel. I do not believe it is unfair to label such behavior > as corruption." > > I didn't realize that council members were to put aside their roles as > elected officials who respond to constituent concerns. As chairs of their > committees, I assume they have no vote in the matter? The rules that the City Council adopted for hearings required them to act like judges, as is necessary when going through a procedure that might take away someone's property rights. An appropriate response to constituent concerns during the proceedings would have been to refer the questions to the Minneapolis City Attorney while the proceedings were pending, and then respond to constituent concerns after the matter was over. It is unclear from the transcripted whether Biernate voted at the PSRS committee hearing but he did vote at the full council for the PSRS committee's proposal to refuse to renew the licenses and thereby shut down the Hard Times.. > I'd like a > clarification on this. Regardless, I stand by my previous posts to the list > regarding Hard Times which focussed on the public information surrounding > the business, and it is far from corruption for us to make the case against > a business which allowed criminal activity to take place on its premises. The point is that you were not sharing public information to make a case against criminal activity but were presenting misleading information through inappropriate channels and pursuing the political agenda of police and city officials to close down the Hard Times Cafe. I do not suggest that you were personally corrupt since you were apparently following directions and not advised of the procedures. The "corrupt" label would more properly be placed on the city council member(s) who orchestrated the campaign against the Hard Times in disregard for the rules protecting due process. You were part of that process. The action against the Hard Times was not about criminal activity, but about the desire to shut them down for political reasons. The alleged crimnal activity was the result of about a four-month police sting operation focused on the Hard Times which led to one transaction for a small amount of drugs allegedly involving one employee. Many would characterize this as a "set-up." It is difficult to imagine the police going to such extensive efforts to shut down a business without a strong poltical motive. Imagine such efforts being made to shut down a McDonald's or Perkins? The "information" that you distributed about 911 calls was not merely sharing of public information on criminal activity but was 1) improper because it was presented to council members outside of the proper channel of going through the administrative hearing, and 2) misleading because the 911 calls also originated from the city-owned parking lot next door rather than the Hard Times. The City Attorney apparently chose not to enter the 911 call statistics into evidence at the evidentiary hearing because it knew that the information was not relevant. The police nevertheless used this "information" to improperly and inaccurately influence the city council decision. > > It's called, "doing our duty." Then we have a problem. > > > CPS Luther Krueger 673-2923 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Lyndale, 8th Ward) Jordan Kushner, Powderhorn
