Earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan warned AG Peter Nickles: "You're playing games with the wrong judge." Sullivan was referring to the AG's near endless stall tactics in the Pershing Park cases. These tactics include attempting to preventing depositions from being taken, and fighting the release of documents to the public. But what about Sullivan's characterization that Nickles is playing games?

In an effort to answer that question, City Desk offers a play-by-play concerning the testimony of Det. Paul Hustler.

Last Friday, Det. Hustler was set to give a deposition in the case. The OAG lawyers were ready. The plaintiffs attorneys were ready. But at the last minute, Hustler decided he wanted his lawyer present and the depo was postponed.

Immediately, the OAG filed a motion asking the court to bar Hustler from testifying. In filings, they contended that Hustler's deposition was unnecessary--that it would focus on old material, not newly produced documents.

Here's where the games come in to play:

The day before, court records show Det. Hustler had met with OAG lawyers and briefed them on what he was going to say in his deposition. OAG lawyer Monique Pressley admitted in the court filing that she "knew the nature of the expected testimony."

Pressley's statement in the filing suggests she knew Hustler's testimony was anything but old news. That, in fact, his testimony would be explosive. In an affidavit later submitted to the court, Hustler asserts that then-Chief Charles Ramsey ordered the mass arrests at Pershing Park. Hustler stated in his affidavit:

"As I walked closer, about five or six feet away from them, I heard Chief Ramsey say, 'We're going to lock them up and teach them a lesson.'"

In light of this, Pressley's arguments asking to bar Hustler appear like she's, well, playing games.

At the subsequent hearing, Nickles responded to Sullivan's criticism by complaining that the plaintiffs attorneys had personalized the case, turning it into a personal attack on him. Both Nickles and Pressley also complained about the constant press coverage.

Yet today, Nickles filed another motion in court concerning Hustler. He made sure to e-mail the filing to the press.

Late this week, the plaintiffs had decided not depose Hustler and stick with his affidavit for the time being. In court documents, Nickles cried foul:

"The public manner in which plaintiffs filed the affidavit in the public record, with the invitation to the public to review the filing, shows that this entire issue was contrived---not for the purpose of searching for the truth, but for the purpose of launching a media frenzy to which defendants would not be able to respond."

Nickles now wants a deposition of Hustler to proceed. He then goes on to personally attack the detective. Here are some of Nickles' attempts to score points:

*The AG notes in his filing that Hustler's affidavit did not include a time and date for when Hustler witnessed Ramsey's comments at Pershing Park. "It is impossible, based on the Affidavit alone, to determine whether the statements Detective Hustler claims to have heard can be reconciled into the chronology of events to which several dozen sworn witnesses have already testified," Nickles writes.

One way Nickles could have cleared this up: He could have consulted the running resume. Unfortunately, the running resume is one piece of evidence that disappeared under the OAG's watch.

*Nickles goes on to question Hustler's motivations for his testimony. He mentions that Hustler had filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against Chief Ramsey. The case was eventually dismissed. He also cites a deposition Hustler gave in which the detective speculates that Lanier was out to wreck his career.

Both points have little to do with the substance of Hustler's detailed affidavit (linked above).

So is this just more games from the AG?

Plaintiffs lawyers are expected to file a response to Nickles tonight. We will post an update.

On November 17, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan confronted AG Peter Nickles on his recent attempts to bar witnesses from being deposed and for general feet dragging in the Pershing Park cases  [PDF].

Sullivan ordered depositions to take place. He then stated that there would be serious penalties levied against the District if it failed to cooperate:

"If any depositions are canceled, I'm going to start imposing fines of $1,000 per day for any depositions that the City sua sponte cancels, and I will impose additional sanctions as well. But that Hustler deposition will take place in this courthouse and be under the supervision of a magistrate judge and there will be marshals present as well. I'm not going to play games."

With that, Sullivan turned to the attorney general: "Mr. Nickles, you're playing games with the wrong judge....I'm telling you, you're playing games with the wrong judge."

Nickles responded with a vague defense that his wide-ranging protection orders and stall tactics were "justifiable." He then couldn't help but jab plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley:

"The manner in which Mr. Turley continues both to play in the press and before the judge the personalization of this matter---I have brought in a team of very good lawyers who are seeking appropriately to present reasonable arguments."

Sullivan did not buy Nickles' defense. He replied:

"I didn't put any limitations on discovery, and I'm very concerned about what's taken place over the last several years. I'm very concerned that arguably there's been noncompliance with court orders. Has it been willful? I don't know, but we're going to find out."

Sullivan raised the idea that the U.S. Attorney's Office may have to get involved. If evidence has indeed been destroyed, he stated that he would refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney' s Office or the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation. "I'm not playing games with this," Sullivan said again.

Nickles told the court that Judge Stanley Sporkin would be filing a report that would address the missing evidence. He made clear that the report would be made public.

Still, Nickles couldn't help but complain about the press coverage of this case. He stated to Sullivan: "Counsel and particularly in the Chang case [that means Turley] have waged a war in the press about the District's conduct. That is not appropriate."

Sullivan wasn't buying this. "It's not that they waged a war in the papers," he told Nickles. "They filed pleadings. They filed pleadings, and the press is going to pick up on the pleadings, and the press is going to pick up on your own statements."

With that, Nickles went into full crybaby mode: "It's more than pleadings. Indeed, you could hear counsel for Chang talk from this very rostrum, Mr. Nickles didn't do this; Mr. Nickles didn't do that; Mr. Nickles is deceiving the court; Mr. Nickles is not complying with his declaration. That is not appropriate conduct by counsel."

OAG attorney Monique Pressley stepped in to complain about... Washington City Paper:

"With respect to the releases to the press, actually counsel's e-mails---my e-mails have been released to the City Paper and were part of a blog."

Sullivan wasn't too interested in all this.  He reiterated that the plaintiffs lawyers were entitled to discovery and then added a new twist: the District would be entitled to "zero discovery." "Your discovery is over," he added.

Few fought harder to get at the truth of what led to Pershing Park than the former D.C. councilmember. Seven years later, Det. Paul Hustler comes forward to say out loud what a lot of people knew: Ramsey was directly responsible for Pershing Park. What did Patterson think?

Patterson responded to Hustler's affidavit with an e-mail. "I'd like to see the District settle," she wrote. "I'd like to have some assurance of lessons learned."

Patterson went on to write that Hustler isn't the only cop who has come forward with a critique of the Pershing Park mass arrests.

She wrote:

"In the course of our investigation of the wrongful arrests in 2002 and the preemptive actions in 2000 we learned about a lot of things done wrong.  But we also identified quite a few MPD officers and officials who tried to do the the right thing -- who tried to do their jobs correctly, respecting the rights of DC residents. We also reviewed the after action reports by several officials who risked their own careers by raising concerns with the actions of MPD leaders in and around Pershing Park. We highlighted the internal investigative report, and the fact that the original report was critical of MPD actions -- before it was sanitized by the leadership, a step that violated MPD policies and best practices on internal reviews. We obviously knew of Chief Ramsey's role in the arrests based on our depositions and his own testimony so I am not surprised by the newly-released deposition, nor do I know why anyone would seek to supress it!"

To answer that question, I called Peter Nickles. Multiple times. He has yet to respond to my calls nor my e-mails seeking comment.

Ramsey has refused to comment as well. One of his press people up in Philly responded to my interview request this way:

"Police Commissioner Ramsey is well aware of the accusation. However he has no comment at this time."

An affidavit filed today in U.S. District Court raises questions as to whether former D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey may have committed perjury in his sworn testimony about the Pershing Park fiasco. Ramsey had repeatedly stated in depositions that he had not ordered the mass arrest of approximately 400 people during the Sept. 27, 2002, World Bank/IMF protests.

Yet the affidavit, by Det. Paul Hustler, a 22-year D.C. Police veteran, maintains that Ramsey indeed ordered the arrests.

Hustler's affidavit, taken Nov. 16, [PDF] is just the latest shock in a pair of Pershing Park class-action civil suits in U.S. District Court. In recent months, the case has been dogged by allegations of massive discovery violations. Judge Emmet Sullivan has called for an outside investigation into how basic evidence in the cases had gone missing.

On the day of the protests, Hustler's squad had been dispatched to Pershing Park to assist with crowd control. At the time, the police had surrounded anyone in the park whether they were IMF protesters or innocent bystanders. Hustler states in his affidavit that officers were ordered to funnel people into the park. Hustler was standing near Ramsey and various police officials at the time. He then goes on to state:

"As I walked closer, about five or six feet away from them, I heard Chief Ramsey say, 'We're going to lock them up and teach them a lesson.'"

Hustler's testimony had been the subject of an intense legal war between plaintiffs attorneys and AG Peter Nickles. Last week, Hustler's deposition was postponed. Nickles immediately filed a motion in U.S. District Court to bar Hustler from testifying in the nearly seven-year old case.

Yesterday, Judge Sullivan ruled that not only should Hustler's deposition go forward but that it had to be taken in the presence of either U.S. Marshals or a magistrate judge.

By then Hustler had already given a sworn affidavit to the plaintiffs lawyers. It is easy to see why Hustler's testimony is so explosive, given the light it sheds on Ramsey's credibility.

The former chief had plenty of opportunity to give his side of the story:

*On Feb. 25, 2003, Ramsey testified before the D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee. Then-Councilmember Kathy Patterson asked if Ramsey had been in on the decision to make the mass arrests. Ramsey replied: "No. When I came up on the scene, actually, that was already practically in progress."

*On Dec. 18, 2003, Ramsey conceded during a D.C. Council investigatory hearing that he did approve of the decision to arrest everyone in Pershing Park.

*On Sept. 18 and 19, 2007, Ramsey was deposed as part of the class action lawsuits stemming from Pershing Park [see video]. He reverted back to previous denials. He stated: "I did not order any arrests at any scene during the course of that day." Even when confronted with his testimony before the D.C. Council, Ramsey stuck with his denial that he had approved the mass arrests.

Hustler's affidavit was filed in U.S. District Court this morning. The Pershing Park matter has long been an embarrassment for the police department as well as the attorney general: The false arrests of hundreds of innocent citizens, the missing evidence and discovery abuses, and now the possibility of the former chief lying under oath.

As part of their filing, plaintiffs lawyers wrote: "The affidavit has obvious relevance to the missing evidence and any motivation for alleged destruction of such evidence."

Hustler's testimony also reveals the unease among authorities who were on the scene that day:

"Officers started to surround the park and push people back into the park. At this time I along with Sgt. Buethe started to walk away. A man from the press stopped me and said, 'Hey I'm from the press and I want to leave.' I called Chief Jordan over and said 'Hey Chief, this guy is from the press and he wants to leave.' Chief Jordan came over and said 'nobody leaves.' At this time Sgt. Buethe told me, let's go this isn't right. And we went to the truck and watched as the crowd was pushed back into the park. At this time, a U.S. Park Police Lieutenant also stated that they were not going to participate in this, and that they were going to pull out."

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

I get a tip from a colleague that Traci Hughes might be out as the D.C. Police Department's spokesperson. This morning, I call her office to get confirmation.

I'm put on hold. After two minutes, I decide to hang up and try again.

I'm put on hold again.

Finally, a pleasant voice gets on the line at the D.C. Police Department's Office of Public Information.

I ask: What happened to Traci Hughes? Is she no longer the D.C. Police spokesperson?

I am instructed that the Office of Public Information can not answer such questions. I am then given a name and number of someone in "Strategic Services." His name is Kevin Palmer.

I get Palmer's voicemail.

I e-mail Mayor Fenty's spokesperson Mafara Hobson seeking answers. After some back and forth, I ask her: "Who is Kevin Palmer and why is he replacing Traci?"

Hobson writes back: "She is no longer there?"

It dawns on me that this is a fitting end to Hughes' tenure as D.C. Police spokesperson. This is an office that doesn't know anything about FOIA deadlines (I'm still waiting for one that I sent months and months ago). It is often an office overtaken by a more powerful office (the Office of the Attorney General).

Despite our differences, Hughes handled her job well. She brought a quiet cool to a job that is one of the most stressful and demanding in the city; she always replied in a perfect NPR voice. I can only imagine how many times she got an angry phone call from a reporter or, say, Peter Nickles. There are good people that run that office. But sometimes media inquires had a tendency to die there.

I call Hughes' cellphone. The call gets routed back to the Office of Public Information. I'm told to call Palmer.

Again, I get Palmer's voicemail.

I e-mail Hughes. And I get this: "I am no longer the point of contact for the Office of Communications..."

After more back and forth with Hobson, I get this from the mayor's chief talking head: "Kevin has taken over because Traci is no longer employed with MPD."

I ask why is Hughes no longer with MPD? Hobson replies: "I don't know."

I finally reach Kevin Palmer. He says he became the acting spokesperson roughly a week ago. I ask about Hughes and why she left. "She is no longer with MPD,"  he says, adding that he doesn't know why she left.

Palmer, who has been on the civilian side for seven years, assures that he hopes to foster good press relations. "We're here to try to make everybody's life easier," he says.

2 p.m. update: Hughes e-mails me back. She says she was told that she was being laid off due to budget cuts.

2:19 update: Hobson writes in to clarify her "She is no longer there?" response. She writes: "Jason I wasn’t asking you if Traci wasn’t there, I was telling you that Kevin has taken over her duties as she is no longer the head PIO. The question mark indicates my misunderstanding of your question of why he’s replaced her when it’s clear that someone has to assume that role."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Congress Heights on the Rise gives 7D police and Asst. Chief Diane Groomes an "A+." The blogger writes: "The Advoc8te sees the police out in full force in my neighborhood in  response to the carjackings this week. There are about 10 police cars on our street and we feel much safer!  This increased police prescence is MUCH appreciated!" Sure. But what about all the murders in 7D?

In Bloom posts a narrative of a beatdown in Bloomingdale:

"On Wednesday, at 5 PM, Brad was attacked by 6-7 young men, at the corner of 2nd and S Street, who wanted absolutely nothing other than to beat the utter crap out of him. Brad, aside from being a military guy, is also an urban-savvy guy, who said that his instincts never warned him that something was about to happen. On his way to the Big Bear Cafe, half the group rushed him from the front..."

Live in Mount Vernon Square reported bullets are flying in their neighborhood. This is from last week: "There was another shooting.  About ten feet away from my residence.  I dont understand this and why MPD and our political leaders can't stop this if they really wanted to. Are our lives worth less than the residents of Foggy Bottom, Georgetown, Glover Park and MacArthur Park?"

Prince of Petworth reports that more cupcakes are coming to D.C. Ugh.

The Triangle reports that a deli at 3rd and K Streets NW will be closing and a soul food outpost will be moving in.

DC Teacher Chic has something in common with Michelle Rhee.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Hustler wanted his own attorney present.

The deposition had to be put off. OAG lawyers used this speed bump to immediately filed a motion in U.S. District Court to bar Hustler from giving his deposition.

The detective was at Pershing Park during the mass arrest incident. It is unclear what he would have said under oath.

Whatever Hustler was going to say, OAG lawyers argued, it was going to be old news. Therefore, he shouldn't be deposed.

But then they write this: "Federal courts have broad authority to limit discovery as necessary to 'protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.'"

Plaintiffs lawyers have filed their own response with the court:

"The District's current motion is a particularly striking example of how openly baseless the District's recent actions have become. The District seeks to stymie Plaintiffs' good-faith discovery efforts on the grounds that the District is unsure whether the deposition is based on the production of late evidence despite the fact that the District was told by both Barham and Chang counsel that he will be questioned on such evidence. It is noteworthy that the District did not raise a similar objection when Detective Hustler was properly noticed by the Barham plaintiffs on November 4, 20009."

They go on to write: "In fact, if the District's sudden alarm is any indication, Detective Hustler appears to be a key witness to the protests and arrests on September 27, 2002."

One other interesting note:  Mark Tuohey, former D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey's lawyer, had shown up popped up graced everyone with his attendance attended Hustler's deposition as well.

D.C. Police detectives worked quickly to solve the murder which took place last Wednesday as Rawlings was trying to board a Metro bus along H Street NE. According to an affidavit [PDF} filed in D.C. Superior Court, there were several witnesses that came forward.

In reading the affidavit, one thing is clear: Jeffrey Britt will not be the only one charged in this case. Police recovered two different caliber shell casings from the crime scene, and witnesses point to other individuals involved in the killing:

"One such witness...reported that it observed two black males armed with guns shooting into the well of the Metro bus."

The affidavit goes on to describe a murder plot developed in front of witnesses and carried out within minutes.

While attending the funeral service for Ashton Hunter, one witness saw Rawlings walk into the proceedings. At that point, several attendees of the funeral talked about Rawlings' supposed involvement in Hunter's murder. The witness heard a "Jeff" state: "I should kill that nigga!"

After Rawlings left the funeral home, this witness saw "Jeff" and two other individuals standing near Rawlings. Rawlings soon left. Jeff and the two others followed. A short time later, the witness heard gun shots and observed the three individuals running back towards the funeral home. The witness said that he noticed they were armed with guns. The witness identified Jeff as Jeffrey Britt.

Another witness saw the actual murder. The affidavit states:

"[The witness] observed one of the black males who was with 'Jeff' shooting a gun at the decedent who was lying on the steps of the Metro bus....It subsequently observed the black male aiming the gun at him and pulling the trigger, but the gun did not go off because it appeared to be out of bullets."

After the murder, detectives found on Rawlings a Smith and Wesson 9mm semi-automatic handgun and a "bottle containing a clear liquid that had the chemical odor consistent with...PCP."

In late July, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan called for an investigation into the discovery abuses in the Pershing Park case. Sullivan suggested that the D.C. Council should get to the bottom of how evidence went missing or got botched.

Councilmember Mary Cheh called for AG Peter Nickles to resign. Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who heads the Judiciary Committee, stated that he "definitely" would be considering an investigation into the matter.

Now, a D.C. Council investigation appears unlikely.

Mendelson tells City Desk that he hasn't ruled out holding hearings on the mass arrests and troubling OAG response. But considering Nickles' relationship to the council, he says it might be a waste of time.

"The difficulty with holding a hearing is Nickles may not show," Mendelson says. "He might even claim privilege....I'm not sure what I could get out of a hearing."

Mendelson counters that the bulk of any investigation into the disappearing evidence is already coming from the plaintiffs attorneys. He's just not sure what more he could discover from holding a public hearing on the case. "I just don't know how we could have an effective hearing given Nickles' obstructionism," he explains.

Mendo says he's still trying to get police documents related to the DeOnte Rawlings case. Pershing Park could be another never ending document chase.

Still, Mendo assures: "Pershing Park is not off my radar screen in terms of Nickles' bad behavior. I'm not sure how I'm going to follow up on it....In some way, and I don't know how right now, all that's going to come back to haunt him."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Hours after the Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary approved the bill Tuesday, the Catholic Church sent a letter to Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) calling for additional changes to the legislation. If church officials are not successful, the letter states, "services will be impacted."

"The exemption language contained in the committee [bill] is far too narrow, and must be expanded to include appropriate safeguards to protect religious freedom to preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other service providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the residents of the District of Columbia," wrote Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the Archdiocese.

Apparently, the church is afraid of lawsuits if it denies healthcare to legally married same-sex couples. With the District's unemployment rate well past 10 percent and budget cuts to homeless services still on the table, this is an astonishing threat.

Update: Councilmember Phil Mendelson says the archdiocese e-mailed him their letter late yesterday evening. "To me this is political," he says.

In the letter, the church mentions not facilitating adoptions to same-sex married couples. Mendelson says: "They've said it before and they've said it in other states. The language that we have is borrowed heavily from New Hampshire. We're not doing anything substantially different from what other states have done. I heard no testimony about adoptions coming to an end in the other states."

WTOP's Mark Segraves noted the huge time suck for officers on the Fenty bike detail:

"Documents obtained by the police union through a Freedom of Information Act request show officers from the Special Events Branch are routinely detailed for the "mayor's bike ride," racking up hundreds of man hours - many of which officers spend waiting for the mayor.

On multiple occasions, WTOP witnessed uniformed officers waiting for one to two hours for the mayor's cycling team to arrive for their training rides.

Thanks to Fenty, Lanier is now forced to offer some kind of lame quote. This past summer, Lanier had to defend her officers' zany response to that Fenty traffic accident. Now comes her weak defense of her department's escort service for Fenty's bike team.

Lanier told WTOP:

"For the mayor to have a security team when he's out riding his bike is not unusual. It's not uncommon. I don't look at their daily agenda of where they go or what they do. I don't know about running stop signs and stop lights and things of that nature."

There are few officials who are more prepared, more media savvy than Lanier. She rarely offers up an "I don't know" response when getting grilled before the D.C. Council. She almost always has an answer and the stats to back her up. This is a chief that lives the job. For her to not know where the mayor is or what her officers are doing is laughable. Can we blame the mayor for Lanier's sudden drop in I.Q. points?

Today, the D.C. Wire reported that a five-member council delegation met with Mayor Adrian Fenty last night to discuss the standoff over Ximena Hartsock. A symbol of testy council-mayoral relations, Hartsock is Fenty's choice to helm the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation. Following some discord among the council, Hartsock, and Fenty, however, the council voted against confirming Hartsock. The mayor responded by keeping Hartsock in place.

According to a source familiar with the meeting, the prevailing sentiment among the councilmembers in attendance (Chairman Vincent Gray and councilmembers David Catania, Mary Cheh, Harry Thomas Jr., and Muriel Bowser) was that Hartsock had to go.

Fenty, according to the source, assured that he was looking for her replacement but stressed that the search wasn't an easy one. The meeting ended with a promise: The mayor would replace Hartsock by Dec. 1, the source recalls.

Still, Fenty still couldn't help being Fenty.

At one point in the meeting, Fenty apparently told the councilmembers: "I want you to understand something---anything we agree to will not dictate my actions as mayor."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

While Nickles may not be such a goodwill ambassador, he did promise the courts that plaintiffs would see a nice payday soon. In late September, Nickles told U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would personally direct settlement talks. He boasted of making huge breakthroughs in the negotiations, and stated that he expects the cases to be wrapped before the Macy's Parade. Yesterday, Nickles announced a settlement in an unrelated protester case, and again expressed hope that the Pershing Park cases would be resolved within weeks.

Turley, who represents plaintiffs in one of those cases (the Chang case), says Nickles has actually shutdown talks. "Despite the statement by AG Nickles that he was going to settle these cases," Turley explains, "he canceled all settlement negotiations with the Chang plaintiffs soon after leaving Judge Sullivan."

Turley says: "We have yet to even meet with him. In the meantime, the city is spending copious amounts of money fighting a case where the merits have already been established."

"Don't know if it's because of Impact (don't think so) or the forever stalled contract negotiations (maybe) or my administration (YES!!!), but I just feel really de-motivated. One thing I can say is that it's definitely not the kids. My kids this year are doing really well, and I've somehow managed to build a really positive culture in my classes. They try hard, and for the most part they're learning a lot. But damn if I'm just not satisfied.

It's getting to the point where I'm thinking about what else I could be doing, and trying to figure out if I want to stay teaching (or at least teaching at my school) next year. On the one hand, I don't like falling into the stereotype of Teach for America teachers who sweep in on a wave of idealism and then leave after we've worked that glassy-eyed naivete out of our system. But on the other hand, do I really want to continue working in a place where I feel unvalued, unengaged, and unhappy?"

Bloomingdale (for now) has left Bloomingdale. In a moving post, blogger writes:

"Well, i looked, but there was nothing in my price range in the neighborhood. working for a non-profit doesn't allow one to afford the prices in this part of the city if you want a rowhouse (not condo). so, i looked far-and-wide for a place that fell into my price range. in the end, i bought a house in trinidad.

i've been in trinidad for two months now. i love it. this house is amazing, the neighbors are friendly (as friendly as bloomingdale, i dare say!), and i'm still a short bike ride downtown to work. it's been interesting learning the minute details of a whole new part of town."

It's hard to imagine Bloomingdale having a better blogger. The upside: Trinidad needs a good local reporter to tell us what's what.

And Now, Anacostia has a full rundown of fotoweek events east of the river.

Borderstan discovers a new place for hipsters to get their haircut.

Greater Greater Washington posts a reader's letter complaining that no one turns their headlights on in Arlington. Really? And reports on the possibility of Riggs Place adding a dreaded speed bump. The blogger writes:

"Would a speed hump even fix the problem? It's not like through traffic uses Riggs, since it doesn't go anywhere. It would be helpful to understand who is speeding there, and why. When I lived a block from there, the only time I would drive on that block was to try to park.

If the high-speed traffic is people circling for parking, a speed hump won't deter them. They may well just speed down the road until they reach the speed hump, slow down to traverse it, then speed up again, since drivers looking for parking are often in a hurry to get the car parked or to find that elusive space before someone else does."

Please check out the cool new blog Left for LeDroit.

And let's give handclaps to Congress Heights on the Rise for their big scoop: Marion Barry is following in the footsteps of some Baldwins, MC Hammer, and Flavor Flav and getting into the reality show racket. He's filming a reality show pilot.

OAG attorneys argue that the order would simply and reasonably protect personal information from being made public. Attorneys even use Washington City Paper to zing plaintiffs lawyers!

Monique Daniel Pressley, senior assistant attorney general, wrote in a Nov. 5 e-mail to plaintiffs lawyers:

"Is there a public interest served by confidential information...being printed in The City Paper tomorrow?"

I guess someone has been reading all our Pershing Park blog items!

Plaintiffs attorneys argued in court---and over e-mail---that the proposed protective order's true aim went well beyond redacting  social security numbers.

Lawyers in the Chang case write:

"The District's Motion for a Protective Order, however, is not what it is represented to be. In reality, it is an unheralded effort by the District to claim the unilateral power to prevent use or disclosure of any document the District would find to be embarrassing or harmful to its defense, even if no recognizable privilege would attach. With increasing attention to newly disclosed evidence showing prior intent to clear the streets of the city and abuse of the discovery process, the District is seeking to limit Plaintiffs' use of such information."

The lawyers go to write:

"The true purpose of the District's Motion is barely concealed in the filing. The District seeks the power to mark any document---perhaps consisting of dozens or hundreds of pages---in its entirety as 'Confidential.' Thus, even if the document contains a single telephone number on a single page that the District elected not to redact, the entire document would be subject to the proposed Protective Order and its use limited."

The proposed order as written by the OAG backs up the plaintiffs' attorneys fears. The order doesn't just seek to redact personal info. It goes well beyond that to include barring "sensitive information pertaining to law enforcement personnel and law enforcement strategies and methodologies."

Aren't law enforcement strategies and methodologies at the heart of this case? Isn't that line just vague enough to bar just about any police document?

The scope of the order would not only apply to e-mails and government documents. It would ban even disclosures made in depositions. There would also be a blanket press blackout on all depositions whether the material was confidential or not. The proposed order states:

"All deposition transcripts shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION subject to the Protective Order for a period of twenty (20) days after receipt of each of the transcripts." Challenges could be made as to whether or not the deposition could be made public.

Imagine if every other deposition was subject to a new set of motions, a new round of classic Nickles stonewalling?

Pressley insisted to the plaintiffs attorneys in the same Nov. 5 e-mail that the protective order was a standard OAG document. "No time wasted drafting one," she wrote. "Contrary to your repetitious litany with respect to delay and obstruction, a general protective order would enable the District to produce documents faster, as there would be no need for many of the time-consuming redactions."

Plaintiffs lawyers aren't buying it.

"We believe the sweep of the protective order is positively breathtaking," plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley tells City Desk. "The order would have succeeded in most of the embarrassing information being withheld from the public and the media. Such an order would not only hamper any disclosure of misconduct by the District but hamper the litigation itself."

The order is still under consideration in U.S. District Court.