EDITORIAL: Things Bent, Twisted And Left Unsaid By "Old Majority" JACC Lawsuit

Flickr.com Photo, Lies And Half-Truths

Upon a review of the long, detailed lawsuit by the "Old Majority" JACC faction against the "New Majority" faction, (click here for access to the lawsuit documents) there are many facts bent, twisted and left unstated. So I'm here to start stating them...

How many points will I need? A bunch. A dozen, at least.

"Twilight Of The Gods"

First, I am reminded of the words of my old law school buddy, Jeremy, who often repeated the sage advice not to go hunting elephants without an elephant gun. Attorney Jill Clark apparently never spent any time with my buddy Jeremy, or she might have heard him say that. Clark could have just sued board members like Michael "Kip" Browne, but instead she decided to drag in defendants like Council Member Don Samuels, the City Attorney's Office, the Commander of the Fourth Precinct and an employee of NRP.

Way to go. Hole up inside the Alamo and declare yourself a nation. Take on the army of Santa Anna, and pray for reinforcements. Yeah, that will work.

Clark would have been better off suing just board members, then dragging in other defendants much later, if the lawsuit could gain some kind of foothold.

But Clark has apparently decided to "go for the gusto." She's playing to a marginalized political constituency, here, not legal and political reality. In taking on powerful, heavily-lawyered entities like--good god!--THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE , (stomp, stomp) Clark is creating a situation where defeat is not only likely, but will be spectacular when it happens, truly a Wagnerian "Gotterdamerung" Twilight Of The Gods bloody defeat of tsunami apocalyptic proportions.

OK, any excuse to link to O Fortuna! (Click here)

Oh, That Part Got Left Out

Second, I find it interesting that Bob Scott is named in the lawsuit. With some other individuals named in the lawsuit, Clark says stuff like "he has never resigned his officer position." She can't really say that about Bob Scott. Everybody saw him resign. Though an initial complaint might very well state the most favorable facts, facts can't be kept out forever.

Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

Third, tossing in Latin phrases like "ultra vires" and "ab initio" may impress laypeople, but the judge is going to see right through this wordy piece of tissue paper.

Steve Jackson Disarmed At Last?

Fourth, it's funny how Steve Jackson--who constantly asserts his "Sergeant At Arms" title--isn't mentioned as any "Sergeant At Arms." Yeah, does that position really exist? Also, I've heard some folks questioning whether Steve Jackson gets PAID for the work he does in Jordan, and whether he's really a member of JACC at all. I'm not taking a side, here...I'm just saying I've heard the question raised. So it's very odd how Jackson's little self-declared martial title got dropped, and you have to wonder what else was left out.

Check Was In The Mail?

Fifth, the lawsuit goes into quite some detail about the corporate status of JACC. As this blog revealed recently, that corporate charter nearly lapsed because dues weren't paid...just like lights and rent weren't paid.

But that's fine, Jill Clark, go ahead and cite the JACC corporate charter...which your clients almost allowed to fall into corporate dissolution.

Biting The Hand That Pays You

Sixth, suing an employee of NRP--the entity which has so much power over the money which flows into the Jordan Neighborhood--shows the plaintiffs here have little concern about Jordan, unless those neighborhood issues conveniently intersect with their own personal interests.

The Independent State Of Jordan?

Seventh, a whole lot of stuff is skipped when Clark says "Although there are some contractual relations between the City and JACC, and the City has minimal oversight function regarding funds, the City of Minneapolis does not have a role in the internal governance of JACC..."

WRONG. This is a very complex and arcane area of dispute, but what Clark appears to be asserting is that entities like JACC or, for that matter, any other neighborhood association are basically like a church or any other voluntary association, and city government doesn't have any kind of legal power or control over those entities.

I don't see it that way at all. I say neighborhood government exists like that of an unincorporated township--I've written on this topic before, click here--and whether or not a JACC entity exists to assume power in that void, that "neighborhood government power" continues to exist unless the state takes steps to dissolve it. (Cities are subordinate political entities of the state, so we're really talking about STATE power, here, not city government power)

Neighborhood associations deliberately, and by design fill a grassroots government role carved out by the city government (therefore the state) and though they have corporate charters, (yes!) they are not MERELY corporations but basically a subordinate government unit of yet ANOTHER subordinate government unit. (Neighborhoods are below cities, which are below states...and no, the states are not "below" the federal government. Good lord, lets not get into the complexities of the FEDERALIST system, or we'll be here all day)

So, in a nutshell: cities can and do have some say over neighborhood associations, not just by design (because these are grassroots government organizations) but through the many oversight functions which the associations take on over years, decades by accepting funding and the strings that come along with it. The rare, almost-unheard-of instance of two factions declaring themselves the "true" neighborhood organization is PRECISELY the kind of instance where the city can and should intervene and convey recognition on one side or the other.

There is nothing stopping the Old Majority from forming their own little club and organizing around particular neighborhood issues. But, really, they should buy their own copier/fax machine and not swipe somebody else's. (How much do you want to bet NRP money paid for THAT piece of equipment?)

"Like An Armed Man Taking A Baby Hostage"

Point Number Eight, disagreement about Federal HUD money. There is a vital and complex debate about how to handle federal HUD money flowing to the Jordan Neighborhood. But one commenter on these issues recently told me that "hiding behind" this issue is "like an armed man taking a baby hostage." What the "Old Majority" is doing has nothing to do with this debate. It has everything to do with who gets to be in charge. Heaven help our democracy if those who are voted out simply refuse to leave. Even George Bush knows better than THAT.

But, Um, Counselor...Where Are The Computers?

Point Ten, I love the colorful language in this lawsuit. The "New Majority" is dubbed a "rogue team" and "interlopers." The lawsuit complains about how locks were changed on the doors of the JACC office AFTER computers, files and checkbooks walked off into the night.

Here's some facts left out: Jerry Moore didn't pay the Ackerberg Group their rent for three or four months, and tried to turn off the electricity, which would have damaged the Ackerberg group's PLUMBING.

It seems like no matter who won...locks were going to get changed. Believe me, if you don't pay rent, locks get changed.

Don Samuels, Master Of The Deadly "Back Smash" Move

Point Eleven, the lawsuit complains that City Council Member Don Samuels accosted "a citizen" at the JACC press conference.

Gee, you have to wonder why Clark doesn't name this "citizen" while she is actually representing Al Flowers as an attorney in his lawsuit against Don Samuels. But it's notable how the word "accosted" is used, instead of "assault." Even Clark can't bring herself to look THAT ridiculous.

This "accosting" mentioned in the lawsuit supposedly involved Don Samuels BACKING TOWARD SOMEBODY.

Yeah, that's how I like to assault and accost people who are much taller than me, and angrily shouting. See, I like to stand in front, back turned, and assault them with the pointy parts of my lumbar vertebrae, he-yaaaaah!!!!!!!!!

What's So "Thinly-Veiled" About It?

Point One Dozen: Jill Clark says the Minneapolis Police Department "will not be able to perform a neutral investigation of any issues concerning JACC" and the police are being "misused, in an intimidating fashion, in an attempt to effectuate the coup, including thinly-veiled threats that the legitimate Officers will be arrested and/or charged with a crime."

Uh huh.

Well, I think if the "Old Majority" will just give back the computers, records, checkbooks, etc., maybe things will go easy.

I mean, how can I best phrase it: Come out with your hands up?

Humiliation, Mental Anguish, Suffering, Etc.

Point Baker's Dozen: The lawsuit wants at least $50,000 in damages. But here's the most important part of the lawsuit; the part called the "Acknowledgement" where Jill Clark signs the following statement:

"The undersigned hereby acknowledges that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 549.21, Subd. 2, costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing part of parties (sic) in this litigation if the Court should find that the undersigned acted in bad faith, asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous and that is costly to the other party, asserted an unfounded position solely to dealy the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass, or committed a fraud upon the court."

See, I think THAT part is going to become really important.

Your Status Quo May Vary

Point Baker's Dozen T Minus One: Lastly, Jill Clark's lawsuit keeps pleading for the judge to impose the "status quo," but in mentioning the status quo Clark is actually talking about a situation that existed prior to January 14; when the "Old Majority" held the officer positions.

At this point, "status quo" means the "New Majority" in control of the JACC office, bank accounts frozen until Franklin Bank decides what to do, city officials dealing with the new officers as the legitimate neighborhood authority, and the police trying to figure out who took the material from the JACC office, so the stolen goods can be recovered and handed back over to the New Majority, and the guilty parties arrested.

THAT is the status quo.

And so, in my final point, I find myself in odd agreement with Jill Clark.

Your Honor, please follow the law, here, and impose the status quo.