City Desk

Pershing Park Case: Nickles Plans To Respond To Patterson’s Letter

Last week, former-Councilmember Kathy Patterson submitted a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. The letter called into question several statements made by AG Peter Nickles in his sworn submission to Sullivan regarding the Pershing Park case. Councilmembers Phil Mendelson and Mary Cheh have their own critiques. But it was Patterson who sent her letter to the federal judge. The judge then issued an August 20 order releasing it to the various lawyers in the case—but not to the public.

Soon, the letter made its way to the press. Nickles does not approve of this leak. He may have a point. But it seems a little petty in light of the AG's promises of a full investigation into the case's numerous evidence problems. Also, Patterson corrects several errors that she believes were made in Nickles' sworn statement. Is this really the moment Nickles should go back to playing the bulldog lawyer?

Nickles suggests he wanted time to oppose the public release of Patterson's letter. In a filing yesterday, Nickles raises the issue with Sullivan:

"Since Ms. Patterson is not a party to this case, the purpose of the Court's August, Order was to make Ms.Patterson's correspondence available to all parties and also to inform the parties of the Court's inclination to post the correspondence on the public docket and to provide the parties with an opportunity to respond publicly. The Court's Order, however also provided that any objections to the posting of the Patterson Correspondence on the public docket be filed by no later than August 26 and that the Patterson Correspondence would not be made a matter of public record until the Court so ruled."

Nickles suggests he really wanted to raise objections to Patterson's letter before it made its way to the press:

"Defendants fully appreciate the Court's effort to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to give the parties a chance to object to the public disclosure of non-party, unsoliticed comments before making them a matter of public record. It appears, however, that events beyond the control of the parties hereto have overtaken this judicial process. Almost simultaneously with the Court's receipt of the Patterson Correspondence, it was released to the press and has been widely circulated by the media. Thus, that portion of the Court's Order concerning the filing of objections to the public posting of the Patterson Correspondence now essentially is moot, and accordingly, any concerns or objections that a party may have lodged with the Court as to such public disclosure would be to no avail."

Nickles states that he intends to respond to Patterson's critique "by no later than September 4, 2009."

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
  • dcblackdaddy

    Nickles love pickles and mostly Nickles-himself. Pershing Park is becoming really dark to you in DC Gov't. But, dude Peetie Nickles, please evict that coward low-life bitch Cora Wilds Master Barry from SE Tennis Complex.

  • Concernedaboutdc

    Peter Nickles never ceases to amaze me in that he finds himself authorized to lie to a federal judge in a sworn statement and, worse, self-overrule a judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court. The things that Kathy Patterson numerate in her letter to Judge Sullivan are not things that Peter Nickles simply overlooked. He made targeted accusations of obstruction against the Committee of the Judiciary. Accusations that were clearly false, as per the public record. His sworn statement was no more than an attempt to exonerate himself from any wrongdoing and wage a political fight with the Council at the same time. He left Kathy Patterson no choice but to correct his purposeful misstatements (polite for lies) under oath and clear her record as chair of the Judiciary Committee. The judge was right to release the letter for public consumption in that it does not include facts that are not already a part of the public record.

    If nothing else this letter underscores the lengths that this Attorney General will go to mislead, not only the court, but the citizens. Demonstrating his seeming idea that the laws of the land apply to everyone but himself.

    This suggests to me that the Attorney General of the District should be changed from an appointed to an elected position so that the people aren't enslaved to a Mayor's personal relationship with a family friend in the face of legal mismanagement and incompetence.

  • Pingback: Where’s the Transparency?: Loose Lips Daily - City Desk - Washington City Paper