City Council Member Don Samuels, Photo By John Hoff
Expectations of a hearing "finale" fizzled today in the "True JACC" lawsuit over leadership of the Jordan Neighborhood Association, as Ben Myers didn't take the stand due to his participation in a murder trial, with the defense having the right to put "New Majority" Chair Kip Browne on the stand AFTER Ben Myers.
Meanwhile, information surfaced (without any great effort, really) to impeach the testimony of Jerry Moore in regard to his participation in the fraudulent mortgage deal at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. (More on that momentarily)
It was a tedious, drawn out morning and early afternoon for the "New Majority" loyalists, with "Old Majority" chair figurehead E.B. Browne showing up in court briefly, as well. Really, the best part was lunch, where City Council Member Don Samuels described (in response to an on-the-record query from this blogger) what evidence he had that Jerry Moore is a lying liar lie-bag of big fat lies under oath. (My phrase, obviously)
Keeping in mind that, only the other day, former JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore took the stand and testified he'd NEVER been involved in a real estate deal involving 1564 Hillside (at issue in the Larry Maxwell mortgage fraud conviction) had never received a check for $5,000 (despite evidence of a cancelled check made out to J.L. Moore Consulting) and knew Keith Reitman only as a JACC board member and HAD NOT done any dirty deal with Reitman involving 1564 Hillside Ave. N., not for work involving "windows" and not for anything else.
So Moore testified. Under oath.
Who will step forward in this dark moment to restore my newly-ripped faith in truth and cosmic justice? Well, as it turns out...
City Council Member Don Samuels was hanging around the trial again, and had lunch with the "New Majority" defendants. Samuels spoke of a conversation he had some time back with Jerry Moore and Ben Myers. It would appear that many months ago Don Samuels had his hands on the criminal complaint from the Larry Maxwell trial. Looking through the complaint--which was provided to him merely to provide info on LARRY MAXWELL, not Jerry Moore--Don Samuels saw the information about involvement by J.L. Moore Consulting and this info just, like, JUMPED OUT AT HIM.
Samuels, who was in that habit at that time of meeting monthly with then-Executive Director Jerry Moore, as well as Ben Myers, asked Moore what was up with that deal? In fact, Samuels had a copy of the complaint with him, highlighted where it mentioned Jerry Moore. Samuels was somewhat chastising of Moore, pointing out JACC is supposed to be RESPONSIBLE for housing issues, yet here was Moore apparently involved in this deal which was now at the center of a major criminal indictment over mortgage fraud, and appeared to be a case of "exploiting housing stock."
According to Samuels, Jerry Moore ADMITTED INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEAL (contrary to his testimony under oath) but said he did nothing wrong.
"Did you do this deal with (Keith) Reitman?" Samuels asked.
Jerry Moore not only admitted doing the deal with 1564 Hillside Ave. N., according to Samuels, but said he'd done "several of these" with Keith Reitman. Moore said he "prepared the house for sale."
A short time after this conversation, according to Samuels, Ben Myers sent Samuels an email "challenging" Samuels, asking why Samuels had brought up the deal at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. and "implying it wasn't fair."
Samuels stated to me he found the deal problematic "at several levels." First, there was the transaction itself. (Fraudulent) Next, there was the fact Jerry was doing a deal with Keith Reitman AT ALL, since Reitman is his boss by virtue of sitting on the JACC Baord. And yet here was Jerry and Reitman, ignoring the fiduciary responsibilities they both had to the JACC organization, off doing a dirty deal by themselves. Clearly, closely intertwined relationships are difficult to avoid in the grassroots levels of neighborhood government, where people babysit each other's houses and children, loan their neighbors slash fellow board members lawn mowers on a long-term basis, etc., but the real problem was THE FACT THE DEAL WAS FRAUDULENT AND STUNK TO HIGH HEAVEN AND THE AUTHORITIES WERE ALL OVER IT.
If this isn't evidence enough that Jerry Moore was LYING HIS (EXPLETIVE) OFF ON THE STAND about his involvement with 1564, I also heard of a long, tearful, dead-of-night conversation Jerry Moore had with a person in the Hawthorne Neighborhood, upset over the impact the dirty deal at 1564 was having on their "relationship," which had once been close. (Almost everybody, including myself, will admit to being "initially impressed" with Jerry Moore)
"If you want to make it right," said the person on the other end of the late night phone call with Jerry. "Then you need to GIVE BACK THE MONEY FROM THE DEAL."
The silence which met this remark was so deafening, there was a fear the line had gone dead.
But then there was Jerry blubbering on the other end, blubbering in grief over this assertion he should give back the money.
"Buh huh huh huh. Buh huh huh huh...."
The next time Jerry Moore pitches 'Poverty Pimp' style barbs at you: ask him how can he live his life with his 'pants on fire'?
ReplyDeleteI find a fair amount of irony in the fact that an individual (Moore) would get on a witness stand in a court of law and testify that he was opposed to the "buyer advantage" program (as it relates to JACC's goals) because it would lead to the "gentrification" of the neighborhood, yet be a part of a mortgage loan fraud scheme (1564 Hillside) and participate in the collapse of the subprime borrowing abilities of those potential homebuyers that would not have qualified for the "buyers advantage" program.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if less of the "no doc" loans written in the subprime market had not of turned-out to be (at best) misrepresentations of the borrower's ability to repay the loan (as is the case of 1564 Hillside) monies woulod still be available for those Mr Moore professes to care so deeply about to buy some of the boarded-up houses in Jordan.
It appears that "gentrification" is becoming one of the new "buzz words" utlizied by impoverished neighborhood pimps to deflect critics.
I mean afterall, why should a homeowner (regardless of race) in a lower-middle class neighborhood have the right to expect that first and foremost, their quality of life in their neighborhood they invest in should be a primary concern?
Shouldn't it first and foremost be their responsibility to make sure that gentirfication doesn't occur? Regardless of how much their quality of life suffers?
My only regret throughout this whole ordeal is that Jerry Moore did not invite some of the young thugs hanging-out on the street corners causing problems and bringing down the quality of life for those lower middle-class citizens trying to enjoy their homes in Jordan, out for one of the many forays to dining establishments he made during his tenure as the E.D. at JACC. At least then the residents of Jordan could feel that something meaningfull was done with all the PNP funds that were wasted...