More discussion of the upcoming trial tonight at 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org).

The entire story is told in the first few paragraphs of Becky's own blog. The arresting officer told her that an elderly couple upstairs had complained after hearing several hours of loud singing, and wanted to be able to nap/rest.

The officer told Becky ""They're happy with you protesting, they just said you were a little loud. They were willing to sign a citation. I'd rather not do that."

So there you have it.

-The complaint was filed by someone who were happy you were doing it; they just wanted Becky to tone it down after having done it so long and loud.

-The officer didn't want to cite Becky.

Clearly and obviously , this is a citation which Becky worked to achieve, per the norm of huffs historic pattern. And as such, I have no interest in supporting her case, or feeling she was wronged. This is street theater b.s. which she lives fo, as does Robert.

Go for it on your own. I support your right to do it as you see fit. But for you to try to portray it as trickery by the cops, or being blindsided, is a crock o you-know-what. It's merely the same tired, repetitive tactics of a duo who keep repeating their routine over and over and *yawn*.

Go further into the audio file of the incident (http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100117.mp3). The officer's initial statement is contradicted by her subsequent statements and behavior. Becky repeated asked the officer what how loudly she should sing in order to be legal, indicating she would do so. The officer repeatedly refused to say, making any compliance a shot in the dark.

This seems to be SCPD Pacific Avenue policy. Performers are not told to play more quietly but to stop playing and/or move along because "there's been a complaint". If they refuse to go, the police officer offers (or encourages--as in Schonfield's case) the complaining merchant or resident the chance to cite the performer for a violation of MC 6.36.020, which carries a bail of $445. There is apparently no investigation to determine if the complainer's complaint is justified ("I wasn't there" explains the officer) or has reasonable cause. Reasonable ause is required by SCPD Policy 364.4--see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/21/18642408.php.

Attempts to get Sgt. Harms to release Public Records or informally clarify what standards are used by the SCPD to determine reasonable cause have been unavailing. It would seem the SCPD should be required to have a policy and training for police officers to make sure that complainers aren't exercising an unconstitutional "heckler's veto", particularly in First Amendment-sensitive protest situations. However since the police seem to be working closely with the DTA as a kind of private security force, the SCPD probably won't adopt such standards until they're dragged kicking and screaming into court.

No one sang after the group was informed of the complaint. The officer interpreted the persistent question "how soft do you want us to be?" to be a cause for misinforming Reilly that the group would not stop singing. Schonfield writes in her report: "“Given the groups antagonistic comments, and constant interruptions of my explanation I saw no behavior indicative that they were going to stop singing. I advised Dispatch to call Reilly and advise him if he still wanted to sign a citation he would need to come downstairs and sign.” (See full police report at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/12/18644482.php )

See also "Sinister Street Singers Cited on Sidewalk" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/01/20/18635743.php for an early description of the incident.

So, what happened? Was she found guilty? Not guilty? Not guilty by reason of insanity? Did she get a fine? Jail time? Community service?
Some of us are just dying to know!

Becky Johnson, part time substitute teacher and chanteuse of questionable talent, was found GUILTY by The Honorable Judge Almquist. He ordered her to pay a fine of $250.00 or perform 35 hours of community service.

In a crushing blow for HUFF activists, Almquist also declared that freedom of speech activities had NOT been infringed upon.

I await the largely inflated, self-serving report from the two HUFFsters (I LOVE how they claimed a membership of 80 people in a recent City On A Hill article). It will no doubt highlight how the forces of evil made the guilty verdict possible, rather than the idea that maybe, perhaps, possibly, she was a loud, obnoxious person disturbing the peace.

So Robert and Becky lost... And the intertubes are quiet for a few days! Amazing how their losses go unnoticed but their (marginal?) "victories" are showcased all over the internets... Maybe this court fine is finally enough to shut her up?

Robert and Becky have no time to deal with us at indy media. They are currently trying to spin this as (hell I have no idea what they are trying to say most of the time) at the Sentinal to a larger audience. . . which is what they always wanted in the first place. Good ridiance!