Friday, September 11, 2009

Doing The Old Plaintiff Shuffle With "True JACC" Lawsuit Is FRANKLY Confusing...

Facebook Profile Photo, Frank Essien, Free Comment And Criticism

This blog is in possession of a copy of the defendant response to the latest filing in the "true JACC" lawsuit, which I have characterized as a "no fair, waah, DO OVER" lawsuit by the malcontent ousted "Old Majority" plaintiffs. I plan to have the document in PDF form and get it posted on the Johnny Northside PDF support site tomorrow.

As predicted by this blog, the defendant filing basically states the "Second Amended Complaint" is a pointless "do over" lawsuit, and should be dismissed on that basis. But one interesting question highlighted by the defendants is this: Who is Frank Essien? And why was Frank Essien a plaintiff, and now Frank Essien is being dropped without explanation? The defendant response says plaintiffs should provide an explanation about Frank Essien's appearing and then disappearing from the lawsuit.

According to one of my sources, Frank Essien was...

...present at the chaotic JACC press conference in January of this year, which was held after the "New Majority" board officers under Kip Browne took the reigns of power at JACC, firing Jerry Moore. JACC has been fighting lawsuits ever since by the malcontent "Old Majority" faction, which still claims to be the true and legitimate JACC.

Movers and shakers in the Jordan Neighborhood hadn't known Frank Essien to be involved in neighborhood organization politics before, and he was heard to ask one person at the press conference, "What's going on, here?" Later, word was that "Old Majority" plaintiff Steve Jackson had asked Frank, "Can we use your name in support of something?" However, Frank had not agreed to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit.

Now plaintiffs are trying to drop Frank Essien from the messy "do over" lawsuit without explaining why.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.


Anonymous said...

Wasn't Jill supposed to have a sign statement from each plaintiff agreeing to her represnting them in the legal action? Who signed Frank's?

Johnny Northside said...

What do you mean by "supposed to have a sign(ed) statement?" You mean a statement agreeing to represent them? Sort of like a contract? I would assume must plaintiffs have something like that, yeah, makes sense they would.

But I'm not aware whether those statements are actually filed with a lawsuit and I'm inclined to think they are not. The court probably just takes lawyers at their word that the person suing somebody is REALLY wanting to sue somebody.

Anonymous said...

I'm a paralegal (not that you can verify that, I suppose), but in answer to Anonymous, clients are supposed to sign representation agreements, and no, they are not filed with the court, so JNS's supposition that the court largely takes an attorney's word for their representation is correct. However, what does get filed with the court is a document called a "certificate of representation and parties," which is basically a players list for the court with contact information for each party/each party's counsel. To my knowledge, a cert. of rep. is not considered a sworn statement, so it's unlikely a misrepresentation on it would cause an issue with the court.


Anonymous said...

I was part of a huge class action lawsuit and every single person needed to sign an agreement to be represented....before the case even started.

Johnny Northside said...

Of course, there is a kind of "due diligence" issue, I would suppose.

Maybe the Board of Professional Responsibility can help sort it out.

I'm just saying.

Anonymous said...

I've read the second amended complaint, and I am wondering, does anyone know if the JACC board positions in question are paid or volunteer?

Plaintiffs propose a theory as to why the changing of the guard may have been improper, and they claim they have been damaged, but I don't see where they define what their damages consist of, such as lost wages, etc. This may explain the breach of employment contract claim.


MeganG. said...

AKL - the board of director positions are voluntary (although it seems several board members were making money off of JACC during the Ben & Jerry days)

The only plaintiff that was staff was Jerry Moore, who was terminated for malfesence due to the fight that he was involved in.

It can only be assumed the 'damages' are referring to character defamation etc. Which this crew has tried and is still trying to persue defamation cases, none of which have been successful and I doubt the current one will be successful - that's the Jerry Moore vs. 2 bloggers, JNS and Donny Allen.

Anonymous said...

MeganG -

Thanks for the info. No matter how I look at that complaint it still baffles me. I must admit, though, it is much more entertaining that anything I have seen in Webber-Camden in years.


Anonymous said...

I have now heard that the legal bill for JACC's lawsuit defense is quite significant - six figures and growing. The attorney that was procured by the liability insurance held by the JACC organization is a damn good attorney with a damn good (for him) hourly rate.

It is quite possible the liability insurance policy will be going after the plaintiffs for legal expenses. And plaintiffs are fleeing.

Anonymous said...

Oh. And remember that 6 figures is just *JACC's* bill, not NRP or any other defendants.

I hope everyone's malpractice insurance is paid up and valid.