IN CASE YOU MISSED IT—"Fenty, Transparency, Scrutiny: The Political Fallout of FOIA Reform," "Council Ices Statehood Committee," "Mount Pleasant NIMBYs Battle Over Haydee's," "Photos: Strasburg's Debut @ Nationals Park," "Triple Shooting Near Howard University"

Howdy. D.C. Auditor Deborah Nichols finds that the District rarely enforces laws providing that city contractors hire local workers and pay living wages. Along with the city's high unemployment rate, and staggering homeless problem, LL wonders where is the mayor on this issue? Michael Neibauer reports: "District laws requiring that developers of taxpayer-funded projects hire D.C. residents and pay their employees a living wage are poorly monitored and rarely enforced, a new audit finds.The failure of multiple District agencies, primarily the Department of Employment Services, to manage or even implement the 'first source' and living wage programs has cost hundreds of D.C. residents potential jobs and the city government millions in potential tax revenue, D.C. Auditor Deborah Nichols concluded in the May 18 report. District residents, Nichols reported, 'may not be receiving an equitable hourly wage rate.'"

Neibauer goes on to report: "Meanwhile, of the 700,000 jobs in D.C., 72 percent are held by non-District residents, said Councilman Michael Brown, D-At large, who has oversight of DOES as chairman of the Housing and Workforce Development Committee. 'When you’re looking at these high unemployment numbers,' he said, 'I don’t know what is a higher priority.' Only four of 16 development projects that Nichols reviewed met the 51 percent hiring requirement. The 12 that did not, including DC USA, Kenyon Square and the Mandarin Oriental hotel, amounted to 361 jobs and $14.3 million in earnings lost. While that is an estimated figure, Nichols wrote, 'it shows the type of economic fortune that could have occurred for the District and its residents had District agency officials and developers been more committed to FSA laws and processes.'"

More coverage via the Examiner's Alan Suderman: "Nichols found that Mayor Adrian Fenty's office had essentially ignored the city's Living Wage Act of 2006, which requires city contractors to pay workers at least $12.10 an hour. Nichols also noted that Fenty's administration, including Attorney General Peter Nickles, refused to allow her access to all the documents she requested for the audit. The mayor's spokeswoman and Nickles could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday."

And Nickles wants to toughen the city's FOIA laws making it that much harder for reporters and citizens to access government documents. If he won't turn over materials to the city's auditor, do you think he'll turn over materials to you? This LL bets our AG has spent more man hours stonewalling Pershing Park plaintiffs attorneys or suing lawyers in special education cases than going after contractors who fail to live up to their obligations to city workers. Council Chair Vincent Gray won't need a focus group to realize he needs to make this a campaign issue.

AFTER THE JUMP—Politics and Prose owners say store is for sale, more Tax Office Troubles, Trey Joyner's family speaks out, Fenty addresses Hadar resignation, and much, much more!

POLITICS AND PROSE: WaPo's Michael Rosenwald reports that the beloved bookstore is up for sale: "The store's owners, Carla Cohen and Barbara Meade, both 74 and so in synch they often wear the same colors without planning to, said they are simply too tired to keep steering Washington's most prominent non-chain bookstore — a premier stop on top-shelf author tours and a frequent setting for book talks on C-SPAN — through the uncertainty of an industry threatened by e-books. Cohen is also seriously ill. 'It's time for us to stop and let somebody else take over for the future,' Meade said in the 26-year-old store's cramped office. Cohen, eyes reddening, said, 'I just don't have the energy like I used to.' Meade and Cohen said that their 60 employees are nervous but that the sale should not be perceived as the store's final chapter. Despite doom and gloom in the industry, Meade said, 'there are no financial problems here. We make a good profit.'" More coverage via WBJ, DCist. On their blog, the bookstore's owners promise: "Although we are contemplating retirement, we anticipate maintaining a regular presence during the transition, and hopefully afterward. Our goal is to find new leadership to operate the business in the spirit which has been our hallmark. As always, we'll see you at the store!"

TAX OFFICE TROUBLES (AGAIN): The Examiner's Scott McCabe reports that a D.C. tax office investigator and a Bethesda businessman have been indicted on bribery charges: "Shelly-Ann N. Wicker, an investigator for the Office of Tax and Revenue, and John F. Craul, owner of a corporate tax consulting firm, were indicted on 28 counts of bribery and forgery charges. The alleged scheme lasted between 2005 and 2007, ending mere months before the FBI uncovered a different $50 million scandal in the same office. Reached by phone Wednesday, Craul called the charges ridiculous. 'I have never bribed anybody, and they don't have proof,' Craul said. 'If Shelly did it, she did it on her own.' Craul said he and Wicker were good friends, and he loaned her money and she paid him back. 'I wish I could afford to bribe somebody,' Craul said, 'but I don't have any money.'" The scheme cost the District roughly $106,000.

D.C. STATEHOOD: WaPo's Mike DeBonis assesses the District's failed efforts to win voting rights in Congress and where to go from here. Vincent Gray offers a simple solution: fight for statehood. DeBonis writes: "Gray and others explain their frustration as rooted in political reality: The Democratic Party has majority control of Congress, plus a Democratic president in Obama. But still the voting-rights compromise has failed. 'If we can't get it now, then when?' asked Gray, who is running for mayor. 'Why don't we just go for the whole enchilada?' 'There's a greater understanding that it's not any more difficult to get statehood than it is to get a single House vote,' said Michael D. Brown (D), one of two shadow senators elected by District voters to advocate for statehood. And that new understanding has been accompanied by second-guessing. 'Statehood is the big fish, and I think we should have put more effort in that originally,' said member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7), who heads up the council's voting-rights advocacy efforts. 'We would have made much more headway if we have just focused on that.' The failure of the one-vote compromise has also emboldened longtime statehood activists who have been overshadowed by the voting-rights establishment. 'It's an I-told-you-so moment,' activist Anise Jenkins said. 'A lot of people put a lot of energy and money into this effort, and it was a total misdirected waste of time.'"

METRO MESS: Unsuck Metro reports that Transit Union boss Jackie Jeter invoked slavery in an e-mail defending a Metro bus driver who punched McGruff the Crime Dog.

TRIPLE SHOOTING: Last night, three people were shot near Howard University, NC8 reports: "It happened shortly before 8 p.m. Wednesday at 8th and V St NW, a block from the 930 Club. DC Councilmember Jim Graham says two vehicles met up at the spot and fire was exchanged. One witness said he heard two gunshots while leaving a building, then saw people disperse and one man squirming on the ground after being shot. Other people say they saw a victim running toward Howard University, then fall to the ground near the McDonald's." More coverage via WaPo, NBC4, WTOP.

Meanwhile most of those troublesome traffic lights have been fixed.

FENTY ON NEWSTALK: The mayor stopped by NewsTalk for an interview. WaPo's Mike DeBonis took notes: "Fenty also addressed why his well-regarded HIV/AIDS czar, Shannon Hader, abruptly left the city health department. He noted that Hader spent more than three years on the job, 'easily the longest-serving HIV/AIDS administrator by at least double,' he said. But would not address why she left—including rumors of a clash with health director Pierre Vigilance— saying only that 'for professional reasons, she's moved on.' DePuyt noted that Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), chair of the health committee and usually an ardent Fenty supporter, called Hader's departure 'catastrophic' in a Post story today. But Fenty wouldn't directly address the claim: "We have momentum. We're on a upward trajectory," Fenty said, noting that Hader's replacement, Nnemdi Kamanu Elias, has a resume 'every bit as exciting and robust as Dr. Hader's was when we hired her.'"

TREY JOYNER: WaPo reports that Trey Joyner's family held a news conference demanding answers into his death, and for the park police officers to be held accountable: "Almost a year to the day of the June 8, 2009, incident, the family and supporters held a news conference Wednesday outside the John A. Wilson Building to say that the investigation is taking too long and they are looking for justice. 'It does take time to take care of business,' said Brenda Joyner, Trey Joyner's mother. 'But it shouldn't take this long.'"

INTRODUCING THE STRASBURGER: Perhaps nothing got more coverage than BGR's tribute to the Nats pitching phenom. Certainly more reporters covered this burger than the Nichols' audit on jobs. Here's just one story on the now-famous burger.

MAYOR'S SCHEDULE:

7:10 a.m. Guest
Fenty on Fox
Location: Fox 5

9:30 a.m. Remarks
Frank Kameny Way Naming
Location: 17th and R Streets NW

3:00 p.m. Remarks
Ribbon Cutting for Tewkesbury Condominiums
Location: 6425 14th St. NW

In a recent public filing, plaintiffs lawyers in the last remaining Pershing Park case provide additional evidence showing that then-Chief Charles Ramsey issued the order to mass arrest the 400 individuals on Sept. 27, 2002. All those arrests were promptly thrown out by city lawyers. More than seven years later, the arrests remain a huge controversy.

In recent depositions, two police officials testified that they heard Ramsey give the arrest order. Ramsey has repeatedly denied that he gave the command to make the mass arrests.

Captain Ralph McLean, who had previously given a similiar account, stated in his deposition: "It is my sincerest belief that Chief Ramsey said, 'lock those motherfuckers up.'"

Last week, Det. Paul Hustler backed up his affidavit with his own deposition testimony. He stated that he heard Ramsey order Assistant Chief Peter Newsham to "teach them a lesson" and "lock the motherfuckers up."

Plaintiffs lawyers go on to write:

"Hustler further testified that he was expressly told by Assistant Chief Jordan that no one was to be allowed out of the park and that even journalists would be arrested."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Talk about sending the lamb to the slaughterhouse. On January 7, Office of Unified Communications employee Denise Alexander sat down for a deposition in the last remaining Pershing Park case. Let's just say she was ill-prepared for any questioning.

But first a little background on Alexander:  Two years ago, she had submitted an affidavit [PDF] swearing that the radio dispatches between D.C. cops at Pershing Park were in perfect order. A police official soon gave a deposition [PDF] stating that the radio dispatches did appear to contain gaps; most notably, the tapes went dead during the actual mass arrests on Sept. 27, 2002. Plaintiffs had then argued repeatedly that Alexander had submitted a false affidavit.

Alexander could be on the hook for a perjury charge.

When Ret. Judge Stanley Sporkin tried to question her during his own investigation into the evidence abuses, his staff was told that she was unavailable. This reporter reached her shortly after the report was released.

With a perjury charge still a possibility, Alexander appeared before the attorneys in the Chang case. A transcript of the proceedings shows that Alexander just wasn't ready. The OAG clearly did not brief Alexander or at least failed to make her understand the personal stakes involved in her deposition.

The deposition got bad enough, quickly enough that at one point Alexander asked the plaintiffs attorney for legal advice.

Alexander believed that she was being represented by OAG lawyer Monique Pressley. Pressley jumped in and said she was not Alexander's attorney. This became the issue of the day as plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley tried to sort through the confusion.

Turley: "Are you represented by counsel today?"

Alexander: "Yes."

Turley: "And who would that be?"

Alexander: "Ms. Pressley."

Turley: "Just to confirm, Ms. Pressley, you had told us yesterday that you weren't representing this witness. Has that now changed?"

Pressley: "I'm not her personal counsel..."

Turley: "Do you understand that you do not have personal counsel today?"

Alexander: "Yes."

Moments later, Alexander didn't seem to grasp the importance of her previous affidavit.

Turley: "Are you aware that that declaration has been challenged as containing false statements?"

Alexander: "I learned of that fact."

Turley: "When did you learn of that fact?"

Alexander: "Tuesday...This week."

Turley: "How did you learn of that?"

Alexander: "Talking to Ms. Pressley."

Turley: "Are you aware that you have been specifically referenced in open court as having potential criminal liability in this matter?"

Alexander: "No."

Turley: "Are you aware that Judge Sullivan, who is the presiding judge in this case, has indicated that he may refer this case for criminal investigation?"

Alexander: "No."

Turley: "Do you understand that you have a right to have your own counsel advise you today?"

Alexander: "I'm understanding that as we speak now."

Turley then asks her if she understands the concept behind the Fifth Amendment.

Alexander went on to explain:  "Ms. Pressley did mention that I could have a lawyer, but I felt as though I didn't need—I didn't know that I would need a lawyer for this. But should I go find a lawyer?"

Turley asks Alexander if she wants her own lawyer. Alexander says yes.

In a surprising move, Pressley, the government's own attorney, presses for the deposition to proceed. She even appears to contradict Alexander's testimony.

Turley: "I am not sure how to proceed, Ms. Pressley. The witness was unaware that allegations have been made about her personally?"

Pressley: "No, she wasn't."

Turley: "She was not aware of that?"

Pressley: "She was not unaware of that."

After the break, Alexander had something she wanted to say: "Yesterday I felt comfortable with going forward with the deposition, but since the beginning of this, I want to have a lawyer present."

And that was the end of Alexander's deposition. What a mess!

In a recent hearing in the Pershing Park case, Judge Emmet Sullivan warned D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles that he "was playing games with the wrong judge."

In a filing last week [PDF], plaintiffs lawyers suggest Nickles is not taking Sullivan's threat seriously.  Lawyers in the Chang case assert that the crafty AG is still playing games with discovery.

Nickles and Co. had handed over 3,000 pages of material to plaintiffs. The only problem: these pages were overly redacted. In some cases, entire pages were blacked out. Nickles is required by law to justify each redaction. In this case, the marked-up pages came without explanation.

This is the third time Nickles has used this redaction tactic.

The plaintiffs lawyers write:

"This Court is all too familiar with the District's discovery abuses in this case. One distressingly familiar contrivance used by the District to avoid its discovery obligations has been to redact or withhold entirely relevant documents on the basis of unsupported claims of law enforcement or deliberative process privileges. This is nothing more than a stalling tactic."

In Nickles' world, almost any document qualifies for redaction. Plaintiffs lawyers have seven years of litigation to support this claim. In a footnote, they cite one hilarious example of the AG's Sharpie abuse.

One document had been redacted for years, the lawyers write, on the basis of law enforcement privilege. The document turned out to be a  "single-page, bullet-point guide for the proper use of a mountain bike."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

For D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, Pershing Park isn't over. Though the city's top lawyer had just settled a big lawsuit with 400 plaintiffs over the mass arrests that took place on Sept. 27, 2002, there is another, more stubborn suit sitting out there.

Attorneys in the Chang case represent just four plaintiffs. But these folks are serious: They were the first to file suit over Pershing Park in federal court, and they have already signaled that they won't be content with $18,000 bucks per plaintiff and a few stipulations that city lawyers will safeguard evidence in future cases.

Yesterday afternoon, Nickles met with the Chang principals in the hope of reaching a settlement. It was the first meeting between the parties, and Nickles had a lot riding on the outcome. If he could make a deal, he could save the District millions of dollars in attorney fees and court sanctions, and save his people from defending a tough set of facts at a trial scheduled to start in October 2010.

Could Nickles make Pershing Park go away for good?

No. The meeting was a brief one. Plaintiffs lawyer Jonathan Turley would not comment on the substance of the meeting but says a trial appears inevitable.

“It is unlikely that we will see a resolution of these issues without a trial and a verdict," Turley says. "We have assumed that a trial would occur in this case for years. All I can say is we continue to look forward to Oct. 2010, when we can put these witnesses and this evidence before a jury.”

Late last night, Turley and Co. filed a motion [PDF] in U.S. District Court that made their intentions all too clear.

The papers ask to amend the Chang complaint to include the allegations over the discovery abuses.

What does this mean? They want to put the destruction and alternation of evidence before a D.C. jury. It's possible that lawyers under Nickles and in the D.C. Police Department's general counsel office would be compelled to testify about how critical evidence went missing or was destroyed. Already, at least one official appears to have given a false affidavit.

The evidence problems range from the withholding of documents for years, to D.C. Police film and radio recordings containing mysterious gaps to the infamous missing running resume, the play-by-play documentation by the police concerning the mass arrests at Pershing Park.

At this point in the seven-year-old litigation, the discovery abuses have become way more than a sideshow. The plaintiffs' filing reads:

"These proposed amendments are obvious and represent a well-founded response to the flagrant efforts by the District defendants to obstruct both Plaintiffs' rights to recovery and the civil processes of this Court. While these discovery violations have arisen at every stage of this litigation, starting with the District Defendants' failure to preserve documents immediately after the arrests or even after the commencement of this litigation a month later, some of the most serious transgressions came to light only recently."

Plaintiffs reference the Sporkin Report and the allegation that the police department's general counsel withheld relevant documents for the past five years. They claim that the withholding of documents and discovery materials had been a tactic from the very beginning.

The plaintiffs lawyers quote from an e-mail in which Assistant Chief Peter Newsham wrote in the aftermath of the Sept. 27, 2002, Pershing Park arrests: "I am very reluctant to share our tactics and strategies with defense attorneys."

The plaintiffs attorneys go on to list some of the subsequent discovery problems aside from the missing running resume and faulty radio tapes:

*A witness testified in deposition that Chief Ramsey's computer was never searched for relevant documents and was destroyed or wiped clean when he left the department.

*In 2004, the District performed a very limited search of police e-mails.

*It was only after the discovery process ended that the District then produced more than 22,000 pages of relevant documents; they were only produced after Judge Emmet Sullivan slammed Nickles in open court. Even these documents contained gaps and unjustified redactions.

*Plaintiffs are still waiting for the District to turn over all relevant video footage. They write: "The District has produced only two unique videotapes that contain footage of the events on Sept. 27, 2002—both of which contain crucial gaps in the footage that correspond to the timing of the arrests at Pershing Park." Six cameras were designated to shoot footage of Pershing Park that day.

*Nickles has failed to live up to his promises to the court. The plaintiffs lawyers write: "Despite his stated commitment to do so, Attorney General Nickles has failed to undertake a comprehensive investigation of these discovery abuses."

When asked about the filing, Turley wrote in an e-mail to City Desk:

"The amended complaint describes growing evidence of the intentional effort of high-ranking District officials to destroy or alter evidence related to the unlawful arrests during September 2002.  The amended complaint would allow a jury to consider evidence of obstruction, spoliation, and perjury.  Regardless of whether the Court now refers this matter for criminal investigation in light of the Sporkin report and recent witness statements, we believe this matter should be put before a jury to render its judgment on the conduct of these officials."

*Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

*follow me on Twitter.

Earlier today, we linked to the Examiner's great investigative piece on District employee bonuses. Among the District employees that received a hefty bonus was none other than the Office of the Attorney General's scapegoat in the Pershing Park mess: Tom Koger.

Koger's boss, who must have approved his more than $2,000 bonus in October, is none other than Ellen Efros whom AG Peter Nickles assigned to take cover the two Pershing Park cases after Koger was reassigned.  Good to know performance did not get in the way of a sweet bonus.

Indeed, the Pershing Park case has a history of treating their scapegoats well.

Koger wasn't the first official to be rewarded after falling on his sword.That honor goes to Assistant Chief Peter Newsham. When the D.C. Council first began probing into the false arrests from Sept. 27, 2002, Newsham was the police official who took the blame for the arrests.

The false arrests have cost the District millions in settlement agreements and lawyer fees. Recently, Newsham's attorney filed a request for more than $40,000 in legal fees. And that $40,000 only covered two months worth of legal work. The case has been going on since the fall2002.

According to court records, Pershing Park only cost Newsham a written reprimand "for failing to follow the guidelines in the mass demonstration handbook."

Chief Charles Ramsey testified in deposition that the reprimand was eventually removed from Newsham's file after a few years.

Ramsey also noted that Newsham "didn't lose any responsibilities as a consequence of this mass arrest" and that the official is "one of the best members that the department has ever had."

Either Newsham masterminded the false arrests of hundreds of individuals on Sept. 27, 2002 or he was simply an outstanding official who took one for the team. The department's actions suggest what the D.C. Council suspected: that Newsham was just the fall guy.

Newsham currently an assistant chief in charge of investigations.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

The Sporkin Report continues to reverberate among plaintiffs seeking damages in the infamous Pershing Park case. Late yesterday, attorneys in one of the cases filed their own response [PDF] to the Sporkin findings [PDF]—repeating their position that a federal criminal investigation into the missing or destroyed evidence should be on the table.

The lawyers join a growing contingent seeking such a twist in the seven-year-old case.

Councilmember Mary Cheh has called for the feds to investigate the discovery abuses. Police Union Chief Kristopher Baumann has argued for a federal criminal investigation as well.

The scope of the Sporkin Report was limited to the missing running resume, a minute-by-minute accounting of police activity on the day of the mass arrests, and the gaps in the radio tapes during the incident. The limitations included not assigning blame for the evidence problems. Yet plaintiffs argue that the retired judge made a case that further inquiries are required.

Plaintiffs attorneys write:

"Unfortunately, Judge Sporkin was unable to identify who, within the District government, was responsible for destroying the produced hard copies and two computer-saved versions of the JOCC Running Resume. Sporkin sates that he was presented with conflicting accounts from various responsible parties but fails to go into much detail or to share his suspicions as to the parties responsible. As a result the Report states that '[b]ecause the contradictory statements in the record are incapable of being reconciled, we cannot rule out the possibility of untruthfulness or something worse.'

Plaintiffs will seek to resolve this matter by deposing the relevant actors under oath, but believe that this matter can be referred to the U.S. Attorney for criminal investigation."

The missing running resume has long been head scratcher. It's difficult to fathom a police activity more documented than the events surrounding the anti-World Bank/IMF demonstrations. And no chief was better to suited to this task of documentation, memo production, mock exercises, and pre-planning than Charles Ramsey. He had been brought in as chief to modernize and make efficient a department floundering in a rundown headquarters with beat cops stuck buying office supplies out of pocket.

The demonstrations were not just an opportunity for the police to show their might or for a chief to parade around in his lanyard. They were also big-time cash cows. Everything from overtime to new digital cameras were suddenly available to the rank and file.

There is a considerable paper trail documenting departmental activity before the demonstrations, during the demonstrations, and after the demonstrations. Every detail was fleshed out in memos and e-mails.

There's tons of e-mails dedicated to figuring out how to staff the holding area for the arrestees, what equipment they would need, who would qualify for overtime, and how many civilians could get in on the extra dough.

Even the rations that officers would be eating merited its own little docket. Before one protest event in spring 2001, Assistant Chief Alfred J. Broadbent, Sr. sent out a memo [PDF] to all top officials concerning meal selection.

Under the subject "Taste Test of Heater Meals Plus," Broadbent wrote:

"In an effort to provide quality meals to the members who are assigned on posts during demonstrations, which may be long in duration, the department is seeking out vendor providers. Heater Meal Plus is one such vendor. A selection of their meals will be made available to the department for field testing on Wednesday, April 11, 2001. To ensure a fair representation of test-tasters, please designate one official of your command to respond to ROC North...on Wednesday, April 11, 2001, at 1000 hours, to obtain the test meals for disbursement to the members. It is suggested that sworn members of the CDU and patrol units be the primary targets for the test. Ms. Minor will demonstrate the proper preparation of eating the meals...."

Every protest generated tons of after-action reports. Even the smallest events demanded a memo. In one report, an official wrote:

"We also observed that under noisy conditions it was difficult to give directions to the officers on the line. I would suggest that we look into giving the platoon lieutenant some sort of small lightweight bullhorn or other amplification device. I believe that right now, each District only has one. The one in the Second District is large and extremely heavy and not practical to carry around to be available when needed. If possible we need some smaller and lighter weight ones that could be easily carried and used."

The point here: If the department could document a taste test and fuss over bullhorns, it surely could have kept a tight watch on the running resume. The fact that it has vanished from the record continues to baffle. Sporkin is just the latest official to question how such an important document could disappear.

Now it's up to a U.S. District Court judge to decide if federal law enforcement should take one last look.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

D.C. Police Union Chief Kristopher Baumann has reviewed Ret. Judge Stanley Sporkin's report on the missing and/or destroyed evidence in the Pershing Park case. Baumann says he has concluded that there can be only one next step: The case should be referred to the Department of Justice.

“There needs to be an independent prosecutor set up," Baumann says. There’s a host of potential criminal charges ranging from perjury to obstruction of justice. That’s just what we know….We don’t know that much. What we do know is terrible. What goes on past that is a question obviously someone needs to come in and tear this all apart.”

At issue is how did the Pershing Park running resume, a real-time accounting of police activity generated by the police department's command center, disappear? And how did the radio transcripts concerning Pershing Park end up containing gaps?

Although the Sporkin Report failed to reach definitive conclusions, it suggested that the running resume may have been destroyed on purpose. And it called for an outside expert to examine the radio tapes. The report also documents conflicting statements from police officials about the evidence destruction.

"I gave it my best shot," Sporkin tells City Desk. He explains that he did not feel comfortable making determinations of fact. That's best left to a courtroom, he argued. "It has to be done in a court of law," he says. "You cannot make determinations without the people having a right to counsel, and the right to cross-examine those witnesses that are giving information that are contrary to your interests."

One way to address Sporkin's concerns is to open up a criminal case with the feds, Baumann says. And he believes the Department of Justice, not the U.S. Attorney's Office, should handle the matter.

“I think Department of Justice," Baumann says. Because of the U.S. Attorney's Office's close working relationship with the D.C. Police and the OAG, he says, it should not take the case. "This needs to be handled out of Main Justice.”

Requesting federal intervention isn't in the police union chief's standard arsenal of policy prescriptions. Historically, in fact, the police union has chafed at federal oversight into departmental affairs. In the late '90s, former Chief Charles Ramsey sought out the Justice Department's assistance in reviewing all police-involved shootings. Rank-and-file cops were furious with Ramsey over that decision.

In the case of Pershing Park, Baumann's tough talk runs no risk of a backlash from the rank and file, in large part because the culprits of unwarranted arrests and the missing evidence are all top department brass. Indeed, it's Baumann's job to hound those folks.

The course of the Pershing Park case, says Baumann, goes beyond whether top police officials erred in a critical decision. He feels the whole drama has the potential to impact criminal cases. If the OAG and D.C. Police general counsel could so thoroughly screw up this case, how well are they handling evidence on the criminal docket?

"I think this is going to become a major crisis for a lot of agencies and a lot of people," Baumann says.

The FOP chief joins Councilmember Mary Cheh in calling for federal authorities to look into Pershing Park.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

*follow me on Twitter.

Are you hazy on the events of Sept. 27, 2002 when D.C. police arrested 400 people in Pershing Park? Do you want to read about what it was like to be hogtied for hours?

Are you unsure what exactly a running resume is? Would you like to know just how the District lost or destroyed crucial evidence? Would you like to read the latest twist in the class-action lawsuits stemming from the mass arrests?

Do you care about AG Peter Nickles and his stonewalling tactics?

Well, we've devoted a page to the Pershing Park mess. The page has new photos, and all the documents, court records, and reported accounts you will need to get caught up. Happy reading.

*photo courtesy of the G.W. Hatchet.

It's one of the tried-and-true plays in the crisis-management playbook. Think about the history: the Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission, the Iraq Intelligence Commission.

This past summer, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles had reached pretty much the same stage. As the city's top lawyer, he was entrusted with defending the indefensible Pershing Park case. Nickles was hoping to persuade his critics that he was determined to get to the bottom of the missing and/or botched evidence in the case. After getting thoroughly grilled by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in July on the matter, Nickles came up with a solution: Hire a retired federal judge, Stanley Sporkin, to investigate on a pro bono basis.

But is his investigation going to be worth a damn?

Sporkin is certainly qualified to handle the task. Before becoming a federal judge, he headed up the enforcement division at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and later was general counsel for the CIA.

A WaPo editorial praised Nickles' decision to hire Sporkin.

In a September status report submitted to the court, Nickles assured that Sporkin would be leading an investigation into the missing "running resume" and the Sept. 27, 2002 radio tapes that went blank at the time of the mass arrests at Pershing Park—the two biggest mysteries yet unsolved.

At last week's hearing, Nickles told Sullivan that Sporkin's final report was just days from completion. Sporkin tells City Desk that his investigation was "much harder and longer than I thought it was going to take."

"I do things thoroughly," Sporkin says. "I talked to a lot of people."

Perhaps. Just not all the right ones.

Sporkin did not interview Robert J. Spagnoletti, who headed up the District's law unit from May 2003 to November 2006. It was under his watch that many of the discovery abuses started coming to light.

When asked about Spagnoletti, Sporkin confessed he did not know who he was.

“Robert Spagnoletti? Who is he?" Sporkin asks before confusing him with a D.C. Superior Court judge.

Sporkin also did not interview former Ward 3 Councilmember Kathy Patterson. She had headed up the first investigation into Pershing Park, and the city's stonewalling tactics started during Patterson's probe.

"Kathy Patterson? That was the internal affairs person for the police department?" Sporkin wonders.

In an October filing, plaintiffs attorneys in the Chang case questioned the independence of Sporkin's investigation after meeting with the retired judge. They wrote:

Judge Sporkin has not been tasked with and does not intend to try to find out how or why the discovery abuses occurred. In fact, he informed Chang counsel that he "would prefer not to" examine whether the OAG had committed ethical violations in relation to the discovery abuses.... When pressed by Chang counsel as to whether he was just a counselor to Nickles, Judge Sporkin replied, "yeah, that's what I do—I counsel. I am here to help this guy get out of a problem."

In a footnote to the filing, plaintiffs attorneys report Sporkin's real mission may be to help Nickles settle the cases. The judge stated as much to the attorneys during their meeting: "Judge Sporkin described the charge to him as follows: 'Out of the blue I got a call from Nickles and he asked if I could be of help. I asked how and Nickles said anyway I could...I also want to help settle the case.'"

In their own filing, plaintiffs' lawyers in the other Pershing Park case suggest Sporkin's report will be a whitewash. They wrote of their own session with the retired judge: "Judge Sporkin has directly expressed to plaintiffs' counsel that his efforts are not comensurate [sic] with a thorough investigation...and that such an endeavor is not his intention."

Sporkin would not say whether he figured out how police radio tapes were erased or how the running resume vanished. Just wait for the report, he says, adding: "We followed the evidence."

Both Spagnoletti and Patterson tell City Desk that they would have gladly talked to the retired judge.

“We are pleased with the settlement," says plaintiffs lawyer Carl Messineo. "It’s a historic settlement and it’s actually a fair deal for the District."

Legal Times reported this may be the largest payout in the U.S. for wrongfully arrested protesters. The two Pershing Park cases are still pending; AG Peter Nickles has promised to settle those lawsuits by Thanksgiving.

The case, Becker vs. D.C., revolved around wrongful arrests during the the anti-globalization demonstrations as well as the controversial police raid on the convergence center where groups were making gazpacho—not bombs or pepper spray as the police officials complained.

The Becker case also included individuals who had sat in a street already closed by D.C. Police. They had linked arms in such a way rendering them useless. D.C. cops had charged at them and beat them with batons. The activists suffered broken noses and head wounds as a result.

Messineo recalls the scene he uncovered through the lawsuit: "A [police official] shouted 'let’s do it!' and the officers charged off the bus, their badges and nameplates removed. They took the batons and smashed them into the faces of people who’s arms were immobilized. They suffered broken noses, broken teeth."

Like the Pershing Park cases, Messineo says, the Becker case had serious discovery problems.

He adds that as part of the monetary settlement, the District agreed to train all of its officers on the proper way to police demonstrations within 120 days of the settlement's approval. The city also agreed to attach a D.C. police officer to any outside agencies that are policing protests in the District. The liaison would ensure that the outside force complies with city law, specifically the bill developed as a result of the Pershing Park controversy—the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004.

The Office of Police Complaints had recently filed a report concerning police actions during demonstrations and found that outside agencies could still be a problem. The complaints board stated in a press release:

"PCB is concerned, however, about action taken by federal law enforcement officers who assisted MPD.  Because the Act does not apply to federal officers, they handle demonstrations differently from MPD, even when assisting with protests on District-controlled public space.  PCB believes this double standard has the potential to undermine accomplishment of the goals of the First Amendment Assemblies Act.

Based on its review of the April 2009 demonstration, PCB recommends that the District, through the combined efforts of the Mayor, the DC Council and the MPD Chief, seek to obtain federal law enforcement agencies’ voluntary compliance with the First Amendment Assemblies Act when assisting MPD officers with protests on District-controlled public space."

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.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

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

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.