Local gun enthusiasts, note these words: “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm.”

That there, laid out in a law likely to be passed tomorrow by the D.C. Council, lays out exactly when you’ll be allowed to actually load a gun in the District of Columbia for self-defense purposes.

This policy was announced this afternoon at a Wilson Building press conference featuring Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, police chief Cathy Lanier, council Chair Vincent C. Gray, and various councilmembers. Much of the presser was devoted to the nuts and bolts of actually registering a handgun—you’ll be able to apply for a handgun permit likely later this week, Nickles said, and the whole process should take “weeks or months.” That includes taking a written firearms safety test and getting fingerprinted, plus a ballistics sample for every registered gun. Getting your hands on a gun is a trickier process; you can buy a gun in another state then have it transferred to a dealer in the District (for a fee)—last week, WTOP’s Mark Segraves found the one guy in town who’s willing to do that for you: one Charles Sykes, Jr.

As to where you can load that gun, given a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm,” it’s only in your home. Not your yard. Not your car, which might be parked in front of your home, but in your home. Now, as for the use of the gun once it’s loaded, the statute will say nothing about that; use of a weapon in self-defense is governed by reams of case law, Nickles says.

The District’s proposed standard is likely to attract additional legal scrutiny from folks who feel that the policy in not in full compliance with the Heller decision, but Nickles says it was drafted to comply fully with the holding. “When you do almost anything in this city, you get a lawsuit,” he said.

Lots more info in the press release after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

A brief perusal of Roget’s suggests a galaxy of promising adjectives for describing one’s reaction to a troubling Supreme Court decision.

For one, there is “troubled.” “Shocked,” “outraged,” and “concerned” come to mind. Further options include “chagrined,” “mortified,” “aggrieved,” “offended,” “incensed,” “riled up,” and “scared shitless.”

In their press releases, however, District politicos have been sticking to one word with alarming regularity:

Disappointed.

First, there is Ward 5 Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas, Jr., who “expressed his extreme disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District gun ban, and indicated that the Council must now establish strict standards to regulate the sale of handguns in the District of Columbia.”

Then we have Fenty, Nickles, and Lanier, who weigh in as follows:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller…. “I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty.*

Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray includes the following in his statement:

Although I am disappointed by the court’s decision, working collectively with the Mayor, the Metropolitan Police, legal authorities, and residents, the Council will do all it can to prevent violence from escalating further as a result of today’s un-welcome weakening of our gun laws.

Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser:

I am disappointed in today’s Supreme Court action which ruled that the DC law banning private handgun possession at home violates the Second Amendment.

At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown:

My disappointment in the Supreme Courts ruling cannot be merely expressed by words. Every time I hear of another youth, another mother or child gunned down in our communities is yet another reminder of why we need these protective measures in place.

[Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton issued a statement in which the d-word was conspicuously absent, as did Adam Clampitt, Independent Candidate for DC Council At-Large.]

Come on, folks! Disappointed is when your team loses in spring training. Disappointed is when your kid doesn’t crack a B in algebra. Disappointed is when your dog relieves himself under the dining room table.

Whatever happened to “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”

*The Post imputes “dismay” to Fenty. Over-editorialize much lately?

The District has sued Group Hospitalization and Medical Services Inc., the portion of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield operating in the District. Suit was filed in D.C. Superior Court this afternoon, according to a docket listing.

More on what prompted Attorney General Peter Nickles to file the suit here and here.

LL is trying to get his hands on the complaint. More to come.

UPDATE, 5:05 P.M.: Here is the complaint. The case has been assigned to Judge Natalia Combs Greene; initial conference is scheduled for Sept. 26.

UPDATE, 5:19 P.M.: CareFirst has issued a corporate statement regarding Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh’s actions, which reads in part, “We are disappointed that the DC Council’s Committee on Public Services and Consumer Affairs voted today to take this action. Given CareFirst’s compliance with regulatory reporting requirements in the District, taking such a confrontational stance seems excessive and wasteful, especially since, if asked, CareFirst would supply any requested information….CareFirst’s role in the community has already been examined by Washington, D.C. regulators and their findings affirm that CareFirst meets its obligations. We are confident that any reasonable review will find that CareFirst meets its obligations both to its members and the communities we serve.”

UPDATE, 5:22 P.M.: In a phone interview, Cheh says the Nickles lawsuit is not at odds with her own efforts, calling them “parallel tracks.”

The Nickles suit, she notes, is focused solely on the propriety of the size of GHMSI’s surplus, while Cheh says she intends to investigate the surplus with “a broader lens.”

“I want to look at the surplus in the lens of continually rising rates, high levels of executive compensation, an acknowledgment that they have a responsibility to return community benefits to their subscribers and to the District in general. All of that is of a piece.”

UPDATE, 5:50 P.M.: Some highlights from the complaint, which charges CareFirst with “willful violation of charter” and “breach of charitable trust”:

Read the rest of this entry »

Let the games begin: Sources say Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh is poised to kick off an investigation of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, the District’s largest health insurer, on changes that it shirks obligations to provide public benefits to District’s residents.

LL teed up the issue in his column last month. Currently, the portion of CareFirst that operates in the District is running a surplus in excess of $700 million, and some politicos believe that money is owed to District residents as part of CareFirst’s responsibility as a “charitable and benevolent institution,” according to its charter.

CareFirst, of course, disagrees, holding that the charter language means nothing of the sort.

The investigation is pending a vote by Cheh’s public services and consumer affairs committee this afternoon. The committee action would grant Cheh subpoena power to inspect company documents and command testimony from executives.

Meanwhile, rumors abound that Attorney General Peter Nickles has plans of his own to take on CareFirst, through a legal attempt to make CareFirst comply with its alleged obligations. A complaint has been drawn up, sources say, and an announcement of the lawsuit’s filing could come before the end of the week.

UPDATE, 3:45 P.M.: Cheh has issued a statement, explaining her interest in pursuing CareFirst was prompted in no small part by former CEO William Jews‘ $18 million severance, which is currently being challenged by the Maryland government.

“I want to know why, in the face of rising insurance premiums, [CareFirst's local subsidiary] is sitting on three-quarters of a billion dollars of surplus and paying fabulous sums to top executives,” Cheh says.

Meanwhile, WTOP’s Mark Segraves is reporting that Cheh has confirmed that Nickles will be filing suit against CareFirst shortly.

The proposed lottery contract between the District and the W2I partnership might be all but dead, but the drama continues.

A Washington Post story that appeared on May 14, the day after the council voted to table the contract, aired allegations from nightclub mogul Marc Barnes that W2I partner Warren C. Williams Jr. had threatened him the week prior at his downtown establishment Park at 14th. The incident, Barnes said, arose from his support for a member of the partnership who holds the current contract, “very close family friend” Leonard Manning.

But things didn’t end in da club, Barnes says.

The day that story appeared, Barnes posted a letter [PDF] to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier alleging that a Williams associate had approached Barnes outside the D.C. Council chambers after the vote to re-table the contract. The associate, according to the letter, told Barnes “that he had stopped ’some people’ from coming to my house 3 or 4 times, and that they were not black, maybe insinuating that they were affiliated with Intralot Inc., the non-black partners in the proposed contract. He further stated that ‘these aren’t the kind of people you want to mess with.’”

Barnes, in an interview, says he sent the letter to send a message: “If there’s going to be a problem,” he says, “let the law handle it.”

As far as the reaction to the letter, Barnes says he’s satisfied; he received a call from Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, who promised to investigate the charges.

Nickles tells LL, “I’m looking into it.”

Julie Chase, a spokesperson for W2I, calls the letter, which was forwarded to all 13 members of the council and several reporters—but not LL—”pure slander.”

“That couldn’t be farther from the truth,” she says. “That’s not how our leadership behaves.” Williams’ lawyer, A. Scott Bolden, did not return calls for comment.

Text of the letter is after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

To be “interim” or not to be “interim”? That is the question surrounding Peter Nickles, who has served Mayor Adrian M. Fenty as acting attorney general over the past three months.

Yesterday, Nickles taped an interview on NewsChannel 8’s NewsTalk with Bruce DePuyt. DePuyt asked the controversial consigliere whether he planned to lose the interim tag anytime soon, which would require him moving out of his longtime Great Falls, Va., home and into the District, not to mention contentious council hearings. Nickles has certainly tackled his job with gusto as of late, recently filing suit against scores of scofflaw landlords.

Nickles’ reply:

The big issue that I have, I’ve been living in one place in Virginia for 44 years. I came into the District every day for those 44 years, and helped build up a law firm from about 80 to about 750. I’ve been the mayor’s lawyer for a long time, his friend, a great friend of his father. I have great investment in the success of this administration, so it’s something the mayor and I are talking about. But this is a great mayor, he’s doing great things. I want to be part of it.

Nickles may also have dropped an oblique hint earlier this month when LL was chatting with him before a press conference on taxi meters: He mentioned that now would be a great time to invest in District real estate.

Peter Nickles has now been interim attorney general for nearly three months. The controversial consigliere has yet to indicate definitively whether he plans to ditch the interim tag and submit his name for the permanent job, which would entail Nickles’ moving to the District and submitting to a bruising confirmation battle, or stand down for a yet-to-be-named new guy.

LL caught up with the man today in the general counsel’s office, fresh off a Hawaiian vacation, and asked him what the plan is.

“Whatever job search is being done is being done by the city administrator,” he says. “Whether I seek to stay or not hasn’t been decided.”

Then he threw out this out there: “I think we’re doing very important work,” he said, referring to a pair of “very serious lawsuits” recently filed against managed-care organizations Chartered Health Plan and Amerigroup and an upcoming campaign against slum landlords.

LL’s read: Not the talk of a man who sounds like he’s out the door anytime soon.

This morning, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty held a press conference to announce the filing of the District’s final brief [PDF] in the Supreme Court gun case, D.C. v. Heller. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 18. Interim Attoney General Peter Nickles declared the brief, written by the city in conjunction with lawyers from three private firms working pro bono, to be the “gold standard” in its quality and thoroughness. “I’m feeling very good about the current situation,” he said.

What’s new in this thing? Nothing major, Nickles said, though he did say that he and his colleagues were “quite surprised” by the brief filed by federal Solicitor General Paul D. Clement that argued that some gun regulation was appropriate even under an individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment. Nickles said the revised brief pursues that line of argument more thoroughly.

So did Fenty, for that matter, in his opening statement, where he compared the District’s handgun ban to a familiar con-law conceit: Just as the first amendment doesn’t protect your right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, so is the second amendment subject to reasonable restraint, he argued.

However, Walter Dellinger (pictured), the big-time Supreme Court lawyer who will argue the case before the court, emphasized in his remarks the primary argument that the District’s been pursuing all along—that the Second Amendment does not preserve an individual right to bear arms, but rather was meant by the founders to apply to state militias narrowly defined. “To the extent that states choose not to have a militia,” Dellinger said, “to that extent states don’t have Second Amendment rights.”

LL asked Dellinger the obvious question: With four votes likely to be predisposed against any sort of state-militia argument, how confident are you that there’s five votes on the court that will buy it? Dellinger gave a somewhat contradictory response: “I never speculate about individual justices,” he said, adding, “I don’t put any member [of the court] off the table.” The District’s argument, he said, would be rooted in “first principles” rather than any tactical considerations to capture individual votes. At the same time, Dellinger said the ultimate goal is to preserve the District handgun ban, not to win any sweeping constitutional victories. “We are looking for the argument on the basis of which the law can be sustained by the Supreme Court,” he said.

Nickles was asked if there was a “Plan B” if the court affirms the appeals court’s ruling. Said Nickles, “If the case is affirmed, then the city council and the mayor will have to sit down and determine what kind of regulations would be appropriate…already starting to think about that.”

This morning, at a D.C. Council oversight hearing, Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh continued her bulldogging of interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, pressing him repeatedly on issues related to his relationship with former AG Linda Singer prior to her December resignation.

Among the biggest issues of contention: Nickles’ decision not to immediately pursue legal action against Bank of America for any potential liability in the now $50 million tax scam case. Earlier this week, Cheh sent a letter to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (and copied to Nickles) on her stationery, co-signed by At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson and Council Chair Vincent C. Gray, in order to “seek assurance that, in connection with the OTR scandal, all steps are being taken to preserve the District’s legal rights against possible culpable third parties.”

The issues at stake are whethere delaying any action against B of A would cause complications with a three-year statue of limitations associated with such claims. Also at issue: whether the bank’s document retention policies might mean evidence could be destroyed before a suit could be filed. Nickles holds that the District is exempt from any statue of limitations, and that pursuing a case before the federal prosecutors have presented their case to a grand jury would be difficult, considering that the feds have crucial documentation in their possession.

In an interview this afternoon, Nickles said of Cheh’s questioning today, “I think it was over the top.”

“I have every intention after this grand jury proceeding is over to pursue any third parties very agressively,” he said. “I am very comfortable in my position on this.”

Full Cheh letter after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

This week’s Loose Lips concerns the fate of litigation that the District’s attorney general threatened against the paint industry last summer. Such a lawsuit would have been aimed at getting the industry to clean up properties contaminated with lead paint.

An interesting detail that came to LL’s attention after his deadline:

After Linda Singer quit as attorney general in December, her nemesis-of-sorts—mayoral counsel Peter Nickles—fired her top aide, Special Counsel Alan Morrison, who was best known for being the guy in charge of pressing the Heller gun case before the Supreme Court. Besides being the point man on Heller, though, Morrison had been involved in various initiatives in Singer’s office, including the possible lead-paint lawsuit

Anyway, after Nickles sent Morrison packing, he announced that the Heller case would be argued by Walter Dellinger (pictured), another constitutional-law giant already working on the case.

Fun fact: Dellinger, according to press reports, has argued on behalf of the National Paint and Coatings Association on lead-paint matters. Back in 2000, states including Rhode Island and Maryland attempted to pass laws that would make it easier to proceed with lawsuits against lead-paint manufacturers. Dellinger testified before legislatures that such laws would be unconstitutional (which, in all fairness, they probably were).

LL doesn’t mean to imply foul play here. He will call it, say, an evocative coincidence.

Today’s “Brevity,” lower left corner of comics page, C10, somehow got by the crack sensers censors of America’s biggest newspapers (the NYT, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, etc., etc.).

If you haven’t figured it out yet, go here. Eat lunch first. And then thank our much-missed former art director, Petey Mo, for the obvious reasons, including his nasty streak and eagle eyes.

LL stopped in to Peter Nickles‘ office yesterday to see if the mayor’s general counsel, lately in the news quite a bit, had anything to say. As usual, he did:

On Ralph Nader wanting him fired: “I think that Nader’s a great guy,” he said. “Disagree with his letter.”

On the firing of Supreme Court advocate Alan Morrison: “[I] disagree with the leaking of privileged communications to the press, despite my great prediliction toward the press.” (LL vouches for Nickles’ great predilection toward the press.)

On a replacement for Morrison: “I’m going to decide that soon,” he said, within a week. “It’s going to be someone with significant Supreme Court experience….Someone, in my view, with even more experience than Mr. Morrison.”

Consumer advocate and presidential spoiler Ralph Nader has posted a letter to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty demanding the firing of his general counsel and acting attorney general, Peter Nickles.

Nickles has been in the news of late thanks to the resignation of former attorney general Linda Singer, who allegedly had difficulty running her office without Nickles’ interference.

The letter, signed by Nader and associate Robert Weissman alleges that Nickles “on several occasions engaged in extracurricular activities beyond his job description — and exceeding his authority.”

Even more seriously, he blocked numerous ideas from your Attorney General Linda Singer and her associates to initiate aggressive litigation strategies to hold corporations accountable for harming District residents and depriving the District government of tax revenues. Perhaps Mr. Nickles’ experience as a career corporate litigator with Covington & Burling actually interfered with his “good judgment” in these cases.

Nickles was back in the news today for firing Alan Morrison, whom Singer had tapped to argue the District’s case before the Supreme Court on the handgun ban. That seems to have been the proximate reason for the letter.

Full letter after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Peter Nickles, general counsel for Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, usually relishes a low-key, behind-the-scenes approach in his dealings as the mayor’s consigliere. But this week Nickles has had to deal with a lot more attention than he’s used to in the wake of Attorney General Linda Singer’s resignation on Monday.

He’s kept pretty quiet since then. LL caught up with Nickles in his Wilson Building office today on his way out to lunch and had a brief conversation with the man about the proper roles of the attorney general and the general counsel.

“I think among adults, the distinction is pretty clear,” Nickles said. That distinction, he explained, lies in which legal matters lie in the realm of policy and which matters have more to do with enforcement.

“It’s always been clear in matters of policy,” said Nickles. “Policy has to be vetted with the mayor and the senior staff….We need vigorous discussion.”

Matters of law enforcement, Nickles said, need to be dealt with more independence from the mayor. “You don’t pull your punches on law enforcement,” he said.

“Good lawyers understand the distinction,” he said.

Nickles went on to explain that the division of labor is inherently fuzzy in an administration with an attorney general appointed by the mayor. An elected attorney general, he said, wouldn’t have the same turf problems: “They run on a platform…and those guys don’t consult on anything,” he said, citing former New York AG and now Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

Nickles expressed tentative support for the District electing its attorneys general, but that would require Congress to amend the Home Rule Act, and Nickles discounted the chances of that happening any time soon. “If we ever have Congress move into the 20th century, we’d have a little bit of home rule,” he says.