Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Legal Funeral For "Old Majority" In The Jordan Neighborhood--The Fat Lady Didn't Sing, But It's Still Over

Stock photo and blog post by John Hoff

Cinco De Mayo was even happier than usual in the Jordan Neighborhood, as word came of the long-awaited resolution of the "Old Majority" vs. "New Majority" lawsuit, in which some ousted members of JACC ("Old Majority") brought an ill-conceived lawsuit to court following their un-election in board elections and much-deserved replacement by the pro-city, pro-revitalization, anti-thug hugging "New Majority" faction, at that time led by Kip Browne and Ann McCandless.

(As of today, the Jordan Neighborhood is arguably in the "New And Improved New Majority" phase, due to having board elections yet again)

Johnny Northside Dot Com has reported on this Jordan neighborhood controversy more than any other media entity, from the ouster of the old JACC officers, to the shocking theft of equipment and records, to day-by-day accounts of the court proceedings, (including Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer being removed from the court room) to the Old Majority beating a humiliating retreat and not even showing up at their own legal funeral.

Now, at long last, cruel fate comes down like the dark, crusty blade of an executioner's axe. Cue the music. It's time to hear the fat lady singing the strains of O! Fortuna!

Here's a link to the PDF of the Judge's order, click here.

Read 'em and weep.

I talked to one of the movers and shakers in Jordan who gave me some commentary on the order, as follows...

First of all, this is a medical textbook case of "I told you so." From Day One, the leaders of the New Majority faction--folks like Kip Browne and Anne McCandless--were saying "You don't get to just run to court." This lawsuit was ill-conceived, badly revised, and ill-executed. It was the legal equivalent of running with scissors. Well, looks like somebody tripped, fell, and stabbed oneself.

In this case, the order keeps referencing the "derivative claims" issue which means, basically, "Which entity has the right to bring the claim?" Looks like it sure wasn't the Old Majority!Ouch. Dead in the water on the issue of STANDING? Somebody didn't do enough legal homework. Doing a lawsuit when you don't have STANDING is like trying to drive a car without CAR KEYS. I guess it happens from time to time...mostly to drunk people. At least such a put-it-down-it's-lame lawsuit made everything relatively easy for the judge and, let's face it, after sitting through all those days of testimony in a lawsuit which turned out to be PRETTY MUCH STUPID AND POINTLESS, Judge Porter deserved a break.

In court rulings, judges tend to dispose of claims by the easiest route, just like you might take your trash to your back alley by the shortest, easiest route and not go all the way around the block. So if there is a question of lack of jurisdiction (like "Spanky" Pete Rickmyer's so-called lawsuit against me, which he has not yet managed to serve) or a question of standing or the statute of limitations or any other easy way to dispose of the case, a court will tend to dispose of the case that way. Here, "derivative claims" presented an easy route to junk something which was clearly junk. The "Old Majority" should have tried to work things through with the board, not just dashed to court with a lawsuit. JACC should have been given an opportunity to figure out how to resolve their own issues. Oh, and the plaintiffs had their opportunity to participate by running for election. They chose not to.

At least they have a better idea when they will win an ELECTION versus a LAWSUIT.

As the court put it so well--I'm paraphrasing, here--the subjective perception of futility is NOT the legal standard for bypassing one's duty to try to resolve stuff outside the courts, through the administrative systems which are already in place.

Oh! The legal batter hits the lawsuit ball and it's's's gone, it's out of the park, and the New Majority is triumphantly running the bases. Picture them running the bases and scoring at home plate: Kip Browne, Anne McCandless, Tyrone Jaramillo, the whole cast and crew of the New Majority.

TAKE A BOW, New Majority, TAKE A BOW.

As for the Old Majority...

Too bad, so sad, and when will Ben Myers be removing the stuff on his website where he calls himself the JACC Vice Chair? I checked a few minutes ago. That junk is still there. Is Ben going to correct his website before somebody files a complaint with the Minnesota State Lawyers Responsibility Board? I kind of doubt it.

Oh, by the way, this court order would tend to show that when the Johnny Northside blog reported on the stunning lack of merit in the Old Majority's legal case, that reporting was (how shall I put it?) closer to CRYSTAL PURE OBJECTIVITY than the Old Majority had the self-knowledge to candidly admit. The court order talks about UNCLEAN HANDS. Who has those unclean hands? Well, exactly who you'd expect.

How did the hands get dirty? Well, for starters, from PUNCHING A BOARD MEMBER.

Shame, shame, shame.

Despite the ease of the legal ruling, (direct and derivative claims) the order contains EXTENSIVE findings of fact. And guess what? If there's an appeal, all the findings of fact are what the plaintiff is stuck with. You can't dispute on appeal what's been found to be fact in the ruling of the lower court.

An appeal? Ha. Good luck with that.

All in all, Cinco De Mayo was a perfect day for this ruling to hit the streets, because win or lose it was TIME TO DRINK LIKE A FISH.

I propose a toast! To a new day in North Minneapolis, led by a New Majority.

(Blogging from Athens, Georgia, named after Athena, Goddess of Wisdom)


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

In legal matters it is normal for "some" counts to be dismissed in the normal course of legal proceedings.

This is normal paring down of the case.

The defendants in this case appear to have swung for a home run dismissal and sanctions. What they received was a partial dismissal and no sanctions.

Counts 3 and 4 survive and are really the meat of the complaint.

Dismissed Counts 1, 2 and 5 appeared to be gripes rather than substantive claims. The suit moves forward with the heart of the issues still to be played out in the court.

There is no valid reason for giving accolades here just yet as there really was no victory.

The inverse comment would simply state:

"The Judge gave merit to the 3rd and 4th counts of the original complaint."

That does not bode well for the defendants.

Johnny Northside said...

Such an Pollyanna reading of the Judge's order borders on the delusional. Note the part where it says "all other relief" requested is DENIED.



Also, check out the part that says "Dismissed With Prejudice."

Time to start drinking.

Anonymous said...

John went to law school and you're just anonymous. I think I know who I'm going to believe.

Reads better than you said...

Anon 6:49 a.m.:

LMAO!----- at you.

Johnny Northside said...

Here's a quote:

Plaintiffs' focus on the lack of independence of the Defendant board *officers* is misplaced; what is significant is whether the majority of the *board* is controlled by wrongdoers, which the Plaintiffs neither allege nor establish--even after nine days of testimony and an opportunity to amend their complaint.

I hope to pull out the most choice quotes and put that in another post, so the Google bots can crawl it for LUNCH. The stuff about unclean hands and the way the "breach of contact" claim falls flat on its legal ass is particularly amusing.

In fact, what I'd like to do is sit down with Kip Browne, read quotes aloud, and keep doing toasts to this DROP KICK VICTORY.

Ouch. Ouch. Oh, god, will the plaintiffs be needing STITCHES after that ruling? This order hits a lot harder than a certain ex-executive director of JACC, that's for sure.

Pond-dragon said...

There is noise that the JACC D&O Insurance Company may be looking for compensation in the 6 digit plus area for legal fees in defending against a: "Frivolous Lawsuit?". Ooops


Do you even know what Counts 3 and 4 are...Mr/s Anonymous?!?!?!!

Ha ha ha

Count 3 -- the so-called "Aiding and Abetting Tortious Conduct" is a claim against the City not JACC. But, the court said there was NO tort so hmmm --- "Where's the beef?" How do you aid and abet when there was no tort? That is very far from giving merit to the claim, wouldn’t you say.

Count 4 -- the so-called "42 USC 1983" claim about City officials preventing the old majority from having a say in Federal fund??? That claim isn't against JACC!!! Ha! Again, "Where's the beef?"

All the claims against JACC and the New Majority (I, II, V, and II (they liked the roman number two so much they used it twice instead of VI) were DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Game over! All done! Bye-bye. Adios! Go away.

I suspect the City didn't ask for dismissal, which is why the claims against them were not dismissed, so have it old majority...go chase your windmills with conspiracy theories against the big bad city of Minneapolis.

By the way, page 9 of Porter's order says: "The record reflects that at least one Plaintiff [Ex Cough E Cough D Cough] had a hand in obstructing the work of the JACC board and in violating the JACC bylaws, precipitating many of the action that Plaintiffs now complain of." That’s another way your hands become unclean.

HOMERUN? You Betcha!!! Everything was dismissed against JACC!!!! It's over except for sanction against the old majority (well, there’s the singing and drinking too).

So, did you mention sanction Mr/s Anonymous? Denied on form not substance. I bet we see that sanction motion re-filed.

Congrats to JACC and the New New Majority!!

Anonymous said...

Is it even possible to recover your attorney fees? That would be great.

John, what are the rules on recovering attorney fees?

Thursday's Hangover said...

You said, "Doing a lawsuit when you don't have STANDING is like trying to drive a car without CAR KEYS."

Maybe its more like, "Doing a lawsuit when you don't have STANDING is like trying to drive a car without A LICENSE."

Cuz the car can move, but doesn't mean you have authorization to drive. And when the police stop you for speeding, you'll get a ticket for not having a driver's license, and then they will tow the car to the impound lot for someone with a license to pick it up.

MeganG. said...

@Pond-dragon: Do you think they will take post dated checks on a payment plan for that six digit reimbursement?


Geektopia said...

Now that a JUDGE has issued his JUDGEMENT, finding the "New Majority" has acted both properly and LEGALLY as duly elected representatives of JACC... when can they expect to get back their STILL missing equipment and records?

Or how about at least a refund for monies drawn from checks written from the STILL missing JACC checkbook?

Didn't SOMEONE admit in court they had written those checks? While at the same time taking the 5th when asked whether they had removed anything from the JACC office, including the JACC checkbook?

And forgive my hazy memory, but wasn't at least ONE of the cashed checks from that missing checkbook made out to one of the plaintiffs? A plaintiff who has just been told by a JUDGE in his JUDGEMENT that they had no legal standing for ANY PART of their lawsuit?

But that can't be true, can it? Surely they're smarter than that.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad the JACC won this lawsuit so they can start working on zoning and ADA compliance.

Anonymous said...

If Dottie hoola-hoops will you two help her with her problem property?

Geektopia said...


Would that be the zoning and ADA compliance that a certain former Executive Director and Chair neglected/ignored/overlooked when those contracts were negotiated and signed?

Not that it's surprising, since a large part of JACC's business over the past year has been cleaning up the mess left behind.

Here's a thought, why don't you ask them why they did this, instead of complaining about those trying to fix it?

But that wouldn't fit your bullshit narrative, would it?

Make NoMi Thug Free! said...

@ Annon May 6, 2010 2:17 PM
You taking up Pete the Pedophile's causes now? Glad you acknowledge the Old Majority lost (unlike Annon @ May 6, 2010 6:49 AM).

Now, the losers should give back the stolen equipment. Don't you agree?

@ Annon May 6, 2010 10:20 PM
Sad. Sad and bitter comments. Dottie has worked hard for JACC over the years to improve the community. Now, all of a sudden, after the legal funeral for the Old Losing Majority, you want to attack her?!!! Like I said, sad.

Anonymous said...

tell 'em geek!

Anonymous said...

To Make NoMi Thug Free

I think you missed the point of my comment. I'm not attacking Dottie, that woman put out a call for help with a problem property on her block. I'm sayin' I don't see these two Johnny Northside heroes rushing to her assistance like they have all over this blog and neighborhood list servs with other problem properties, making nasty comments about property managers and owners and even making a special trip to the government center to research the problem property's mortgage history and blast that all over neighborhood news groups. My point is what does this woman have to do to get some help, does she have to hoola-hoop down Penn Avenue to get some help from these so called super heroes on this super hero blog? Get it now?

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

To the anonymous commenter about Dottie:

John has blogged regularly about issues along Penn Avenue. Dottie's blog entry, although describing an ongoing problem, is fairly recent. We certainly share her concerns but can't be everywhere doing everything. Even if we were to focus significant energy on this issue and property, I predict you'll see more JNS posts about Hawkman hooping before this is resolved.

Also, your accusatory tone is not helpful. And Dottie herself hasn't contacted JNS and asked for help either. This blog doesn't regurgitate stories from other media sources; we want to either give new news or a different perspective on something.

If you're interested in doing more than throwing barbs at John or myself or others, then let's set up a time to meet at the property in question. We'll talk and I'll do a blog post about it. I'll even keep your identity anonymous if you prefer. Otherwise, based on the tone of your posts, I'm going to assume you're more interested in casting aspersions on this blog than actually helping the neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

Email Ref: E2D2FE34B500B > Re: 311 Web Page Request

"The problem Address is 2707 Penn Ave. N. I was talking to one of the neighbors and they (2 or 3 sets of long term home owners) are afraid to call 311 because according to them the Landlord tells the Tenants they are complaining and then they are retaliated against!

Anyway they are saying that the plumbing in this building is not functional and the renters are dumping buckets of urine on the lawn, behind their garages etc, and taking garbage bags of feces and putting in the city garbage.

They have also claimed that the tenants are backing into the Garage at 2704 Queen.
According to them there have been 3 sets of renters in 4 months, evidently the Landlord goes to eviction court and gets tenants that have just been evicted, signs them up for 2 months rent in advance, 2 months later or less new Tenants.

Any way that is the way these folks see it or have heard it.
I’m sure any help would be appreciated."

Unknown Source "Not all problems are nails, nor are all solutions hammers!" Seems apropos at this point

Ranty said...

Well, I am glad that Dottie's post was pointed out. I hadn't visited her blog in a while but I will certainly be doing more of that now.

And I am certainly interested in helping her out in whatever way possible. It sounds like an awful situation over there. :-(

Anonymous said...

Can't anyone please you people? First you complain about a guy urinating in public. Then poor folks do it in private and you complain. There can't be any crime in dumping urine in the yard as long as the creation is done in private. Get over it you uptight revitalizers.

Anonymous said...

To Anon (Blog Troll) @ 12:12 AM

Evidently the words (Public Health) don't register with Trolls:

Post your address and we'll all collect for a couple days and dump it on your door step. Seems you Trolls are into that.
"kinky but OK!"

Revitalizer I'll take that label with pride, at the other end is neanderthal, all yours.

la_vie_en_rose said...

I guess I'll be the one to point out that SURELY DUMPING THAT MUCH URINE AND CRAP IS SOME SORT OF HEALTH HAZARD FOR THOSE LIVING IN THE AREA? Kind of like how everyone peeing and defecating into the same river they drank from in Roman times caused everyone to grow ill?

Granted the bags of crap are going elsewhere, but you're still dealing with BUCKETS of piss every day. Let's say no one gets sick -- you're STILL going to be dealing with one nasty smell. Trust me on this. There was a neighbor where I lived in Indy who kept his dogs tied up behind his house. The yard was never cleaned of poo, and that much pee would cause a hellacious stink in the air during the summer.

Obviously, you are a troll because no one can be that damn stupid. If you are, then allow me to demonstrate how nasty of a situation that is. I'll great you with a bucket at the door.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it'a write to dump urine on anyone's property. I can't believe someone wood think that it is ok two pee outdoorts. Come on we're trying to make north better, not more of a whole.

Just Deserts said...

Dumping urine on a neighbor's property landed a Chestertown man in state prison for up to 3 years.

Michael J. Rohm, 50, pleaded guilty to a felony probation violation charge for dumping urine on and in a neighbor's storage shed. He was on probation for a 2005 felony driving while intoxicated conviction at the time.

He was arrested May 13 after he allegedly dumped a 3-liter bottle full of urine on and in a shed that belonged to a neighbor of his in the Village Estates mobile home park. It as unclear whose urine was in the bottle.

He was later indicted by a Warren County grand jury on a second-degree burglary charge for allegedly going into another neighbor's mobile home and fixing himself a plate of scallops.

Rohm cut a plea deal Monday that will result in the burglary count being dropped if he stays out of trouble for a year, but he admitted that he doused the neighbor's shed with urine.

He will be required to plead guilty to a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge in Chester Town Court in that case. He will not face any additional jail time for that charge.

Rohm told Warren County Judge John Hall that he felt "like I'm getting shafted" because he was adamant he did not commit the burglary.

Hall, though, pointed out that the weightiest charge against him, the burglary count, was to be dropped if he remained out of trouble for a year and did not contact the woman who had accused him.

Hall sentenced Rohm to a 1- to 3-year state prison term for the probation violation.

His lawyer, Tucker Stanclift, said he did not know why Rohm dumped urine on the shed.

Happy Dog Owner said...

OK. So I have 2 dogs. Each weighs about 85 pounds and they pee in my yard (or in the park where I walk them) several times a day. My neighbor has a huge German Shepard in his fenced in yard. And there are at least 5 more families with dogs on my block. Not to mention all the squirrels, rabbits, skunks, raccoons, and wee critters that relieve themselves in our yards. So now you are accusing us of being a "health hazard" because our dogs urinate!?!
You should think before you write some cockamamie comment.
And, it's perfectly legal to have an outhouse in Minneapolis provided it doesn't stink. It's also legal to fertilize your garden with manure (animal, or human as some immigrants do)provided you cover it with dirt to seal in the odor.
Like it or not, it appears to be legal for someone to dump piss in their backyard. HOWEVER, I AGREE WITH YOU. If my neighbor was doing that I would not be happy, and would complain to the city.
I do, however, resent the accusation that the urine in my yard (and my neighbors) is a health hazard.
PS. If you have ever gone backpacking in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area you won't find a toilet. You do it just like the bears (well, nice bears bury it).

James Olson said...

I agree with Happy Dog Owner in this regard. I think the issue is that since public urination is not legal dumping buckets of urine creates such a concentration of the substance that it could pose a health risk. If the residents were just going here and there as needed it would really not be an issue except for the visual issues. Perhaps in areas with homeless or lots of vacant properties or known problem properties the city couple place porta potties either on the corners or behind properties maybe in the alley so residents would have a safe legal place to go. This would prevent the dumping of urine as well as illegal public urination that seems to occur often in our neighborhood.

Connie said...

The comments have switched the focus from a problem property with inadequate plumbing. There's an allegation that this landlord trolls for new tenants in the evidition courtroom. These tenants are moved into a sub-standard housing unit and apparently are guilty of bad behavior like dumping their urine on neighboring properties. These are serious issues and detracting from that with comparisons to your pets peeing in your yard is arrogant and arbitrary.

Help Dottie solve the issues on her block!

Make NoMi Thug Free! said...

@ Annon on May 7, 2010 2:54 PM

It's good to know you aren't attacking Dottie. Do note that I am not the only one who read your comment in that way so you may want to work on softening your tone.

Besides, John and Jeff don't have to carry all the water and there is plenty of good work to go around. Everyone can choose their focus in NoMI and Dottie is working on Penn Ave. If you read her message to be call for help, then feel free to go help her.

BTW, some comments about slumlord are nasty because what they allow to have happen on their property is that way. So if the shoe fits, then don't shoot the messenger for pointing it out.

So, what does Dottie have to do to get some help? Post a comment on her blog or ask, because we appreciate what she does. To suggest that she would need to "hoola-hoop down Penn Avenue to get some help" is condescending.

Do you get it now?

Anonymous said...

Ignore "Happy Dog Owner"!!!

It's a troll comment.

This blog post is about the New JACC Majority winning the law suit.


Anonymous said...

To Happy Dog owner
A. There is a difference between humans and animals
B. We spend $Millions a year on sanitary sewers for a reason. Its called "Public Health"
C. There is a gigantic difference between 1 person per 1000 acres than 100 people per 1 acre.

City Code:
Rubbish: Combustible or noncombustible waste materials, including garbage; and the term shall include, but shall not be limited to, such material as ashes, paper, rags, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard trimmings, tin cans, scrap metal, mineral matter, glass, crockery and dust. Rubbish shall not include human excreta, sewage or motor lubricating oils.

The moral of the argument is: When you live around other people you need to have some respect for those other people, especially if you would like some respect from them.
In other words: If you treat your surroundings like a sh-t hole, don't be surprised when people treat you like sh-t.

Hans said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
la_vie_en_rose said...

"Happy Dog Owner," I didn't accuse you or anyone else in this area of having stinking backyards. That was just one person in my old neighborhood in Indianapolis whose yard stunk like hell. Of course, his house was in shambles, they let their dogs get loose and tear up everyone's property, the yard was also littered with old appliances, and one of the son's sold drugs and considered himself a big gangbanger because he was a white kid in a black wannabe gang. It was a problematic house. However, yes, in the hottest parts of summer, the smell from his backyard would permeate the neighborhood. He never picked up the dog crap, and unfortunately, if it hadn't rained for a while, you could smell the piss, too (everyone else with dogs would dilute the urine in the yard with water so the smell wasn't strong; guess who didn't?).

My point was that huge amounts of pee smell after a while. Especially if it's dumped on concrete or wood as opposed to grass and dirty, but either way, it still stinks. Odor like that can make a person ill. I know, personally.

Anonymous said...

I think this is actually a very teachable lesson to any readers of this blog who rent. While it may be completely evil for this landlord to offer substandard housing to those coming out of evition court, the reality is that when you go to court for a unlawful detainer (UD) you've just limited the pool of willing landlord who will rent to you. Note I just said "go to court" because many won't rent to people who've even been brought to court for UD, it's just not worth the potential hassle. So the lesson here is to always place rent as your top priority above credit card bills, cable TV, Internet, Cell Phone and cigarettes. If you need to move work it out with the landlord, don't think that by shorting them you'll just be limited to damage related to the amount owed.

Happy Dog Owner said...

Excuse me. Why is it whenever someone expresses is dissenting opinion they are branded a “Troll”?
This blog allows readers the opportunity to comment. You don’t have to like or agree with the comments, but readers have been invited to express opinions. In this case I did not change the topic, as a “Troll” would. I commented on a previous comment from Rose. It was actually Anon 10:20 who changed the topic to Dottie, and Anon 4:08 and Anon 12:12 who brought “piss” into the discussion. While my comment may have garnered an emotional response and might be considered a “flame” by some, I wish you guys would stop branding everyone who posts a comment you don’t like a troll.
Again, I do agree with you. People should not be dumping their human wastes in the back yard (especially their neighbors’ yard), even if it is partially legal. I have looked at the city ordinances and I don’t know how to help Dottie, beyond calling 311 or 911, child protection, or pollution control. Bottom line is a rental house must have working plumbing, call the city.
I’d like to see the city deliver a porta-potty to the house and add the cost to the owner's tax bill, maybe listed as a “pooperty tax”.

Another Happy Dog Owner said...


Based on the post I read at

I'd say comparing these citizens to my dogs detracts from the reputation of my pooches. I have hard time feeling sorry that they dump urine in the backyard when I read about their additional behavior. I can't help but think they are causing their own standard of living by the behavior they engage in. I think if it was my dogs living across the street the author of that blog would be much happier.

Anonymous said...

For those commenters who haven't gotten the word yet, NEWS FLASH:
"Human waste can be a serious health hazard, as it is a good vector for both viral and bacterial diseases."

Patrick said...

Dog Owner,

There's been a lot of trolling lately. I think that's why people are somewhat sensitive to troll comments.

Although it can be very difficult to know who is a troll since many people sincerely hold bizarre beliefs and opinions.

Anonymous said...

So you are saying that someone who loves their dogs has bizarre beliefs?

Anonymous said...

@ May 9, 2010 3:50 PM aka Happy Dog Owner:

It's me, Annon @ May 9, 2010 9:34 AM. Your posts are troll comments because this blog post was about the New JACC Majority winning their law suit (not about urine, Dottie or dogs). It wasn't about any of the things you were talking about.

Your later post was interesting but still a troll comment because your not talking about the New JACC Majority winning, the legal funeral for the old majority or anything dealing with JACC. Your still talking about irrelevant points in response to other troll comments, which makes your comment a troll comment by default.

Anonymous said...

Focus trolls! This is a column about the "Old Majority" Sh*tting the bed... not a new column about human waste issues. "Old Majority" rules! (not)

Anonymous said...

If dogs (and other animals) defecating were not a health hazard, than why is it that you'll be cited by the City if you have more than about three days-worth of dog poop in your yard? Maybe because it is a health hazard.

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

Trolls or not, a common occurrence on any blog or online forum is for the discussion to stray widely from the original topic. For that reason, many off-topic comments have been approved.

Plus, don't you think it's rather apropos that the abject failure of the "Old Majority's" lawsuit has morphed into a discussion about dog poop?

Anonymous said...

To Anon May 10 4:44pm You are yourself a Troll as you seem to be making more comments than others that have nothing to do with the original topic. Instead you've chosen to use this forum to run down anyone who makes a comment based on another commentor's plight in the neighborhood with bad neighbors. In fact i'd say you've tried to hijack this post to change the subject to who can comment and on what topic.

Anonymous said...

@ Annon on May 11, 2010 6:39 AM:

It's me, Annon @ May 9, 2010 9:34 AM and May 10, 2010 4:44 PM.

Please notice both comments address the topic of the post, the Legal Funeral for the Old JACC Majority, and then points out that all other comments are off-topic.

None of comments that I properly label as Troll comments addesss any issues of substance like:
when will the Old JACC Majority return the stolen office equipment? or
when will the police restart their criminal investigation of the Old JACC Majority for stealing the office equipement? or will Ben "Public Figure Head of the Old JACC Majority" Myers change his JACC related information on his law firm's website to show that he is no longer the "vice-chair" of JACC?

Johnny Northside! said...

Current status of this lawsuit:

02/16/2011 Taken Under Advisement (Judicial Officer: Porter, Charles A., Jr. )