Tuesday, May 19, 2009

"True JACC" Lawsuit In The Jordan Neighborhood: "You Know Better Than That, Ms. Dejvongsa," Admonishes Judge Porter...

Photo By John Hoff, JACC Press Conference, January 2009

Dokor Dejvongsa took the stand yesterday, merely a tasty appetizer to the main course: grilled Jerry Moore.

All the same, her testimony had some notable moments, including an answer so argumentative--something about people picking which rules they liked, ignoring the rest--that, without waiting for Defense Attorney David Schooler to object, Judge Porter asked, "How much of that do you want stricken?"

David Schooler responded....

Something like he wanted the last half stricken. With a baleful, no-nonsense look, Judge Porter looked at the witness on the stand and said, "Miss Dejvongsa, you know better." (Dejvongsa is an attorney, the partner of Ben Myers. Since Ben Myers does criminal defense, I guess that makes her his "partner in crime?")

Despite some rather unkind remarks in the hallway that Dejvongsa must have gotten her law degree out of a Crackerjack box, or words to that effect, the young attorney seemed poised, intelligent, although a bit strident. Understandable, however, given how badly her side is getting its bacon fried. Word comes secondhand that, early yesterday morning, Judge Porter ruled against dissolution of the JACC corporation as an option, saying this was "not properly pled."

OH!!!!! Just because it's not your birthday doesn't mean you won't get SPANKED sometimes.

In the courtroom as Dokor testified was a member of the Minneapolis Mirror, which is sort of the contrarian internet publication of Minneapolis, its articles known to take positions at odds with whatever somebody ELSE manages to write first, and better.

Some examples:

# T.J. Waconia fraudsters: Not such bad guys, just ask their friend Jim Watkins.

# Johnny Northside is bad for writing about the reality of the rough life of Annshalike Hamilton. (This murder is still unsolved)

# Minneapolis Advantage program is a plot to bring about gentrification in North Minneapolis. (Unknown what is meant by "gentrification," unless it means "occupied by people instead of boarded up.")

So, yeah, the Minneapolis Mirror was there but hasn't managed to write anything quite yet. I checked. Maybe the sight of Jerry Moore on the stand--nervous as an acne-scarred teenager trying to pin a corsage on prom night--made the Minneapolis Mirror think twice about coming down hard on the side of the "Old Majority" in the Jordan Neighborhood. I kind of doubt that, though. This much is true, however: you can't write a good article if you aren't taking notes.

But I'm sure one can still try one's hand at an EDITORIAL, where only a rarified thimbleful of facts are needed for flavor.

Where were we? Oh, yes, Dokor "Should Know Better" Dejvongsa on the stand. Dejvongsa testified about first becoming involved with JACC in the Fall of 2006. She took on a project with a committee to amend the bylaws, which many agreed were "outdated." Towards the end of her term, some issues came up with Kip Browne. To make a long story short, the board never approved the final version of the bylaws.

Defense Attorney Schooler asserted, through his questions, that only 5 board members were needed, according to the bylaws, so there was no need to install officers prior to elections. Dajvongsa said so few board members wouldn't be "a good representation of the community."

She didn't say much else that was notable. At 11:20 a.m., spectators in the courtroom were far more fascinated with Jill Clark's horrible facial twitching, which was OFF THE SCALE. But then a ripple went through the crowd as Dokor finished up, and former JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore was called to the stand...


Anonymous said...

A lot has been said, both here and elsewhere by many individuals regarding the fiduciary responsibility related to the board members and Executive Director of JACC.

In light of all the allegations of the misappropriation of funds over the last couple of years (for the organization) it would be interesting to find-out exactly what fiduciary responsibilities were in-place (as it relates to these funds) for the Board Chair and what delegated authority was granted to the Executive Director for the expenditure of funds.

Or, was it okay to just spend until you ran out of money?

dennis plante

Jordan Neighbor said...

So Kip Browne blocked the final approval of the amended by-laws???

Did he get a bonus from Uncle Sam for that???

At least a tax credit?


Anonymous said...

The "new" bylaws were not adopted because Jerry wouldn't let the members have a copy of the 3o days prior to the annual meeting so they could read and UNDERSTAND them. They contained some major (and bad) changes to them.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the board voted (with Kip, PJ and Daniel voting against) to approve the bylaws. However, changing the bylaws requires additional steps. The Board has to notify the neighborhood of the proposed change, hold a community meeting and actually read the changes and then, 20-30 days later, hold another community meeting where the residents vote on whether or not to accept the new bylaws. Nothing happened beyond the board vote. For good reason!

The proposed bylaws reduced the number of directors and made it possible for the board chair to appoint directors in certain circumstances. The end result was that it would entirely possible for 2/3 or more of the board to be appointed rather than elected within a two-year period.

The proposed bylaws also removed the requirement for community meetings. In fact, the proposed bylaws were so anti-community, they would not have had a chance of being adopted.

It is interesting to note, however, that the proposed bylaws were the only bylaws provided by the former board chair to those elected to the board in 2007. So they believed they were operating under bylaws that had never been adopted. No wonder things were such a mess.

As to fiduciary responsibility of board members: At the board meeting where the most recent "budget" (I use the word loosely) was adopted, there was no supporting documentation provided to the board. EB Brown and Robert Scott said they had reviewed it with the accountant and recommended approval. One board member asked (to be sure) that they both had thoroughly reviewed the budget. Based on their response, the board voted to approve the budget. Again, at least three members voted against it (Kip, PJ and Daniel), but they were outvoted by a majority that abrogated their fiduciary responsibilities and trusted the board chair and the treasurer's opinions, neither or whom are/were financial professionals or people who even understood what was going on with JACC's money.

Anonymous said...

Dokor and Myers are just bad lawyers looking to make money on others.

they are getting to be well known in the community of bad lawyers

Anonymous said...

This is a load of crap.