Jordan Kushner wrote:
> Mr. Krueger seems to be continuing his role of 
> propaganda and spin control that he so actively 
> pursued in  efforts to shut down the Hard Times.

Luther Krueger replied:
> I myself did not appear
> before the PS & RS committee; however on this list I presented
> information that was public about the Hard Times--911 calls
> to the property.  I guess now I'm the one confused as to 
> who ordered anyone to suppress public information?

Jordan Kushner has pointed out that the 911 record itself is misleading.
In his June 5 post of the 1821 Riverside 911/police call record, Luther
made his own improvement to one item of public information.  This was what
he posted:

> Suspicious person/Unwanted (frequently narcotics): 67

This is a combination of two items, "Suspicious person" and "Unwanted
person."  "Suspicious person" is generally not a 911 call; it is when the
police themselves decide to stop because someone appears suspicious.  There
is absolutely nothing in the public record about narcotics related to
either "person" item.

In his early June posts to the list and in personal email to me, Mr.
Krueger also insisted vociferously that the police had informed cafe
management prior to the raid that they had a problem with narcotics.  A
great deal of testimony from the administrative law hearing contradicts
this.  For example, the Cedar-Riverside beat officer and a representative
of Hard Times management saw one another regularly at the Cedar-Riverside
Business Association meetings.  They seemed to be on relatively cordial
terms.  Yet the officer never tried to discuss the drug-trafficking issue
with the Hard Times person.  The officer's attitude seemed to be that they
should have known they had a problem and that it wasn't his job to tell
them.  

My reason for posting this is not to attack Mr. Krueger personally.  I know
that many people on the list respect him, and he may in fact have believed
the things that he was posting.  However if Mr. Krueger was being honest,
whoever informed him was not being honest.        

Rosalind Nelson
Bancroft

Reply via email to