Latest On The Jordan Neighborhood Leadership Controversy: "Old Majority" Seeks Temporary Injunction, "New Majority" Seeks Disovery

Photo By Jeff Skrenes,
JACC booth at recent housing
fair


Information fell into my hands in the form of two letters to The Honorable Judge Charles A. Porter, one from "Old Majority" attorney Jill Clark, and the other from "New Majority" attorney David A. Schooler of Briggs and Morgan.

In a nutshell: the "Old Majority" attorney, Jill Clark, is seeking a temporary/preliminary injunction and--in a letter dated March 24, 2009--asked for a hearing "as quickly as possible." The "New Majority" attorney responded in a letter dated March 26, 2009, and basically said, "No hearing should take place until discovery is conducted."

Here are the letters, unfiltered, for your consumption...

March 24, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Charles A. Porter
(...)
Re: Brown v. Browne, Civil Case No. 27-CV-09-2277

Dear Judge Porter:

Plaintiffs do request a temporary/preliminary injunction hearing, as set forth in the enclosed copy of the Informational Statement. Plaintiffs request that this hearing be set on as quickly as possible, (sic) and that other aspects of the scheduling order (discovery, mediation, etc.) be addressed following the outcome of the hearing.

Sincerely, Jill Clark

A note to the reader: Jill Clark is one of those rare, highly-inconsiderate folks who opts for an abstract signature which bears no relation to human letters; anybody who perceives the signature can just figure it out, making some kind of SENSE let alone LEGIBILITY is apparently not a high priority to the owner of the signature.

Though Clark's signature does look something like a single, over-sized "D," there are no "D's" in "Jill Clark" so that doesn't really make any sense. Therefore I'd have to say Clark's signature looks like...a broken heart that has drunkenly fallen over on its side.

Attorney David A. Schooler responded, on March 26, "VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL" as follows:

Dear Judge Porter:

This letter is intended as a response to Ms. Clark's letter dated March 24, 2009. Ms. Clark has requested a temporary/preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing in Plaintiff's informational statement. Joint Defendants object to yet another preliminary injunction hearing at this state of litagation.

(Paragraph break not in orginal, PBNIO)

This Court has advised both parties that if "Plaintiffs wish to pursue a temporary injunction prior to trial on the merits in this case, they should contact the Court, an evidentiary hearing date will be set and a Scheduling Order consistent with the decision will be issued." (Order, Paragraph 18)

(PBNIO)

However, absolutely no discovery has been conducted and there is no reason to believe the outcome of another injunction hearing would be any different than the Order issued on March 11, 2009. If Plaintiffs choose to avail themselves to remedies set forth in Rule 65 then Joint Defendants are entitled to notice as well as affidavits so that Joint Defendants can properly respond. Accordingly, Joint Defendants respectfully request that any temporary/preliminary injunction hearing be deferred until such time as there is compliance with Rule 65.

Furthermore, Rule 111.02 requires that both parties file an informational statement within 60 days. Plaintiffs and Joint Defendants have complied with this rule. There is no requirement under Rule 111.02 that the parties appear in Court to discuss scheduling, discovery, mediation or any other issues.

(PBNIO)

Joint Defendants and Plaintiffs are closely aligned in the proposed scope and extent of discovery, scheduling deadlines and trial duration. Plaintiffs has requested ADR...

(JNS says, "That means "Alternative Dispute Resolution," basically mediation)

...and Joint Defendants have indicated that it would appear to be inappropriate based upon the unusual circumstances of this case--namely, impossibility and the absence of any monetary damages. Joint defendants will abide by whatever decision the Court chooses regarding the ADR requirement.

In summary, Joint Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue a Scheduling Order in accordance with Rule 111.03 without an appearance by the parties as it is unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Briggs and Morgan, PA
David A. Schooler

(I'd like to add that I asked the source of these documents, "Why does Jill Clark want another hearing when the TRO hearing went so badly?" To which my source responded, "She likes to beat her head against a wall. She thinks it feels good.")