Be an Angelic Troublemaker


This website is dedicated to the life and work of the late Bayard Rustin.

Image result for bayard rustin 

"We need in every community a group of angelic troublemakers." --Bayard Rustin--


Allen Jones has lived in San Francisco since 1960.

In the course of his activism on other matters concerning San Francisco, Jones noticed, and was surprised, as a 49er fan to hear that in December 2011, the NFL had loaned the San Francisco 49ers $200 million to build a new stadium 35 miles south of San Francisco.

Aware of the NFL’s "Commitment to the Community Letter" dated June 15, 2011 made it even harder to believe. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell promised to support communities that support the NFL. But six months later, in December 2011, the NFL owners voted to loan the 49ers $200 million to leave the Black community of San Francisco that had supported the team for the last 40 years of the team's 67 years being in the city.

Jones firmly believes any sports team has the right to take its business anywhere it can make the most profit. However, there is a right way to leave and a wrong way to leave. Jones believes something was seriouly wrong with how the team moved away from San francisco's struggling Black community.

Looking into the matter further, Jones discovered more blatant hypocrisy by elected city officials of San Francisco concerning the 49er departure. That has caused Jones to revolt as a fan of not only the 49ers but also as a fan of "Everyone's favorite city."

In respect for the struggling Bayview Hunters Point where Candlestick Park was located and respect for the name San Francisco, Jones felt the duty to fight back.


This site was created for the purpose of chronicling racism as viewed by its creator, of, the SF 49ers owner Denise York's now successful relocating of the team out of San Francisco. SF 49er Fan Revolt will continue to track racism on this same site as perpetrated by San Francisco City Hall, until major changes occur in policy decisions that affect the SF Black community.



Unethical City Hall

When I asked Nicole Wheaton Elliot of the mayor's office to explain what I learned of Mayor Lee and Nazly Mohajer she responded:
Click on the link.
Common sense says that if Mayor Ed Lee, did not reappoint Nazly Mohajer to the SF Human Rights Commission on March 1, 2012, she would not have hosted a debt retirement party for the mayor's 2011 campaign later that same month. Therefore, this act should be viewed as a conflict of interest.
The Leland Yee/Keith Jackson FBI indictment. (Read the next to last paragraph of SFGate article)  
Ms. Mohajer remained on the commission two years, of a four year appointment. Strangely, it was right after the Yee/Jackson arrest (March 2014) that Ms. Mohajer stepped down from her Human Rights Commission position. Her last meeting was March 2014 and I was in attendance by order of the commission's "Equity Advisory", which I was a member briefly. Based on how that meeting went, there was no indication that that would be her last meeting.


June 11, 2015

Dennis Herrera
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4682

Dear Sir,

My name is Allen Jones. On September 22, 2014, I filed an Ethics Complaint (No. 01-150121) with the San Francisco Ethics Commission alleging, a conflict of interest between Mayor Ed Lee and a SF Human Rights Commission member Nazly Mohajer over a campaign debt retirement party. 

In March 2012, Ms. Mohajer hosted a party that raised over $8,000.00 for Mayor Ed Lee's 2011 mayoral debt in the very same March 2012 that Ms. Mohajer was reappointed to her office position on the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. Two years later in April of 2014, Ms Mohajer ended her time on the commission under what I view as questionable circumstances.


No person shall give or promise, and no officer or employee of the City and County may solicit or accept, any money or other valuable thing in consideration for (i) the person's nomination or appointment to any City and County office or employment, or promotion or other favorable City and County employment action, or (ii) any other person's nomination or appointment to any City and County office or employment or promotion or other favorable City and County employment action. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)

On February 10, 2015, I received; by email, from the Ethics Commission notice that along with the DA, your office would investigate this matter. The attached letter also informed me that both your office and the DA had asked that no further action be taken until the Ethics Commission hears from your offices. This is a problem for me because I understand that I may not take action until all agencies have declined to pursue this matter.

It has been more than 120 days since the DA and your office have had the opportunity to review this case. And as I understand the charter, even if you concluded that you would not pursue this matter, once I notify your office that I intend to pursue this case on behalf of the people, I must wait as long as 120 days before I can take action. This makes no sense to me and if true this law should be changed.

Nevertheless and despite my belief that these charter rules are rigged against average citizens taking action against city government in my opinion, I am informing your office on this date June 11, 2015, that I intend to pursue on behalf of the people of San Francisco a conflict of interest suit against Mayor Ed Lee for his part of "Accepting" funds and any other violation I may discover dealing with this matter.

The provision regarding injunctive relief is found in section 3.242(c) of the SF C&GCC:

The City Attorney or any resident may bring a civil action on behalf of the people of San Francisco to enjoin violations of or compel compliance with a conflict of interest or governmental ethics law. No resident may commence a civil action under this Section without first notifying the City Attorney in writing of the intent to file a civil action under this Section. If the City Attorney fails to notify the resident within 120 days of receipt of the notice that the City Attorney has filed or will file a civil action, the complainant may file the action. No resident may file an action under this Section if the City Attorney responds within 120 days that the City Attorney intends to file an action or has already filed a civil action. No resident may bring an action under this Section if the Ethics Commission has issued a finding of probable cause arising out of the same facts, the District Attorney has commenced a criminal action arising out of the same facts, or another resident has filed a civil action under this Section arising out of the same facts. A court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to any resident who obtains injunctive relief under this Section.