Tuesday, May 19, 2009

"True JACC" Lawsuit In The Jordan Neighborhood: Jerry Moore Takes The Stand, Takes The Fifth, And Then Takes Off... (PART ONE OF FOUR)

The Naked Truth, Flickr.com Photo

Jerry Moore didn't appear to know which hand to raise to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Jerry's left hand jerked up, first, to waist level. Then he switched to his right. He swore the oath. I waited for the ground to open up right then, with the smell of brimstone and a roar.

Oh, wait, I thought...he hasn't actually SAID anything, yet.

Well, except...

...the part about swearing to tell the truth.

(Double checking for the ground to open up...)

Jerry Moore said that, in 2004 or 2005, he was elected to the JACC Board. What was his basis of eligibility? Jerry said he "owned property" in Jordan. Some hours later, at lunch with Don Samuels and a number of JACC plaintiffs, I was treated to a colorful description of the property Jerry owned, known as the "shoe shack."

The shack in question was "barely standing," and was a "blighted piece of property" according to one highly-creditable witness who saw it often. Canopy-type tents were rigged up, their posts in white 5-gallon buckets weighted down with...whatever. Rubble. Debri. Crap.

The shack was located at Broadway and Logan. The shack had little value, unlike the land on which it sat. Adjacent to the shack were vacant lots, and the "shack land" was owned by a guy from the "outer rings of the metro." At that time, the land on which the shack sat was the key to a "development proposal." I was unable to obtain a definitive answer about whether Jerry's interest was in both land and shack, or merely the shack. I asked if anybody could provide me a photo. I reiterate the request.

At the time of Jerry's ascent to the JACC board, ubiquitous super-volunteer Megan Goodmundson made inquiries about what Jerry's eligibility was. Jerry spoke of having ownership in a "business." According to Goodmundson, "In hindsight, our vetting wasn't as good as it should have been." So it was Jerry's vague interest in the "shoe shack" allowed him to weasel his way to the JACC board. There were rumors--I heard these rumors said aloud at lunch with several of the defendants--that cartons of cigarettes were sometimes sold at the shack, ripped off from "convenience store smash and grabs." This is unconfirmed. Dispute and contrary information is welcomed in the comments sections.

Jerry's interest in the nebulous "business" was about as nebulous as the business itself. He was some kind of "secretary" for an organization associated with this business, which was supposedly involved in "fundraising for youth."

Jerry spoke about how, at one point, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program froze Jerry's monies in a dispute over what was supposed to be in Jerry's contract. JACC filed a grievance with the NRP policy board and, as a result, funds were released, Jerry said. Meanwhile, JACC went through the process of screening candidates for Executive Director but--as is so often the case--the interim "ED" had the inside track, and that horse was Jerry.

Plaintiff attorney Jill Clark walked up to Jerry Moore with a copy of what was purported to be Jerry's employment contract. Excitement rippled through the ranks of the "New Majority," which has been faithfully attending hearings in large numbers, while the "bride side" of the room looks as sad as an unrumpled bed in a honeymoon suite.

The document was introduced as Plaintiff Exhibit 16. Defendant Attorney David Schooler objected in regard to whether the document could be authenticated, especially as JACC records had DISAPPEARED. Jerry said it was a copy from his own records. Schooler objected because it was a copy, not the original. Overruled.

The document--which even "Old Majority" Chair E.B. Brown had apparently never managed to see--was introduced into evidence.



Anonymous said...

great picture...i mean story!!!

Anonymous said...

Investigation has shown Mr. Moore never had an interest in the Shoe shack or the So called youth movements, just more of the same, say it the way you want it told, not the way it really is, under oath they call it perjury!