Luther Krueger:
>BTW, the Hard Times _was_ cautioned about the problems inside and in
front
>of the Cafe well before the raid a year ago.
Luther, you keep insisting this but you won't say what the occasion was,
when it happened, or who the officers were. You won't say if the police
talked to a staff person (if so, which one?) or the cafe's attorney.
Let me repeat why I have a tough time believing you. I was at the
Administrative Law Judge hearing. The Cedar-Riverside beat officer (I'm
sorry, I forget his name) was asked specifically about this and shrugged
his shoulders. In particular, he had _not_ discussed the situation with
the Hard Times person that he saw on a regular basis at the CRBA
meetings. CUP Foods is the only yardstick I have for this, but it
provides a fairly clear measure for comparison: The SAFE team met twice
with the owners of CUP Foods. If something similar had happened with
Hard Times, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate.
>And they were given the
>opportunity after the raid, by the city licensing folks and the MPD, to
>accept conditions to their license which would have precluded the city
>having to decide whether or not to revoke. I think that's eminently
fair.
They offered a counterproposal that accepted some of the city's
conditions and rejected others, and then tried to negotiate. The
licensing people didn't want to negotiate. One of the conditions was
greatly restricted hours. They weren't too happy about that because a
lot of their business is after bar rush, and they thought it would put
them out of business.
> As for 911 calls directly
> by citizens, for example, a drive-by shooting into a cafe, whose
political
> agenda do you think is being pushed?
As far as I know, the police never investigated the drive-by shooting.
They didn't take evidence (bullets) from the walls. The shooting
happened right after a group of people were thrown out of the cafe. The
police refused to follow up when someone later that night located one of
the people who had been thrown out. But the police used (and keep
using) the drive-by shooting against the cafe. That sounds to me like
the political agenda of the police.
I'm not suggesting that the ALJ process should be above criticism. Just
about all legal (and all human) processes are flawed, some more than
others. But the ALJ was the legal process in effect at the time. The
ALJ report said that the city council should not consider any factual
evidence that had not been submitted and considered by the judge. The
report said that very clearly and it said it on the first page; it is
not a subtle, hard-to-understand legal point. The fact that police and
Mr. Biernat introduced new information on the day before the final
council vote to me demonstrates their lack of respect for the law and
the processes that make up a lawful society.
Rosalind Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Bancroft Neighborhood
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
