The only crimes Jhon has been convicted of, of which I am aware, are (1) "resisting arrest" in a selective dog ticket, and (2) "vandalism" re: the inside of the squad car after he was arrested at the City Manager's office in November of 2002. He has, however, been repeatedly harassed by CSO Pam Bachtel and Sgt. Loran Baker for his dog B.W. Like some other homeless people, he faces additional pressure because he speaks up for himself (and hence implicitly, for others).

I acknowledge that Jhon has a temper, which he has sometimes expressed. I do not believe it wise to physically resist arrest from the police. I understand, however, that this can happen if one feels (and is) wrongfully accused. We are conditioned to be subservient to authority, whether legitimate or illegitimate, and I believe Jhon's reaction, while not wise is understandable and in some way "healthy" though not productive. (You don't win battles against armed police officers nor do you get good PR by physical resistance).

I believe Jhon IS interested in the answers to his questions. His interests (having to do initially with soccer fields in the Pogonip and why the Master Plan's requirements were not being met there) didn't align directly with mine. Then, according to his account, he sought to get compensation and recompense for the city seizure of two of his vehicles without appropriate hearings. Perhaps your P & R source needs to be more specific, if she remembers, about what went down. Perhaps she can post the account herself of what happened (remaining anonymous if she wishes to do so).

I have also spent many hours with him, observed his behavior in HUFF meetings, worked with him on creating a "Fight Your Vehicular Ticket" flyer, and observed his demeanor in dealing with authority figures. Admittedly he is not always as soft-spoken as I might prefer. (Sometimes he feels my approach is too militant).

If Jhon really became "explosive and angry" in a fashion that was illegal, why were no "disturbing the peace" charges brought against him? If the "hatchet" charge was a legitimate one, why was it dropped?

I have not interviewed P & R employees on this matter. I suspect that would not be particularly receptive, not feel free to speak openly, etc. You, however, seem to have some access.

I note, however, that you cover your identity with the name "doubtful". While I appreciate the need to retain anonymity in some situations, it can also mask an agenda, a predisposition to support those in positions of authority, and/or other kinds of partiality.
I admittedly have a bias--defending those who I feel are unfairly excluded from the political process, punished by the City Hall bureaucrats, or victimized by the police. Particularly those who are homeless.

No, I didn't stage the visit as a publicity stunt. Jhon volunteered to help me, believing there was no restraining order, given the stipulation that was made in Atack's court over a year ago.

I believe you are correct in determining that there was such an order still on the books which neither of us knew about. But the nature of the order--banning him from city offices for three years--is so broad and repressive as to be a clear violation of his (and our) First Amendment rights.

His behavior last Thursday did not warrant an arrest. He did not become angry and explosive. He was quiet, well-behaved, and helpful. And he was arrested and faces more persecution in court.

Perhaps P & R employees of conscience should step up and speak up about this situation. It reflects badly on the entire department to ban a member of the public--whether you think he has a "mental illness" or not, from access to public records when that individual has committed no crime and has exhibitied no recent behavior that threatens officials at all.

City departments don't like to have their policies challenged by gadflies. I put this incident in the same category as Ed Porter's arrest of me for openly and legally taping a City Council Committee meeting in November of 2002. Or then Mayor Fitzmaurice's 6-month waste of city money banning myself, Becky Johnson, and Bernard Klitzner (The Koffee Klatch Three) from City Hall for "harassing Anna Brooks"--because we were inviting homeless people in to a public space to lobby him and his Sleeping Ban buddies to change an abusive law.

It would also serve your argument better for you to come clean with who you are. In so doing, you eliminate the suspicion that you are unwilling to be publicly accountable for what you say. It is easier and safer to fling mud from the safety of the darkness, but it doesn't further the public understanding or buttress your own credibility.