On Sept. 27, 2002, the Metropolitan Police Department rounded up hundreds of citizens inside Pershing Park. They then arrested them and detained them. For those hours and hours in police custody, these citzens were hogtied. And as soon as the last person was released—the city dropped all charges against everyone in this case—everyone knew that the class-action cases were soon to follow.

The Pershing Park case was an embarrassment for the city which had once prided itself on hosting protests without resorting to heavy-handed tactics. Chief Charles Ramsey's reputation took a big hit. [Chief Cathy Lanier was also involved].  The cases could have been settled a long time ago. Except that....the city lost key evidence in the case and a then-Attorney General Peter Nickles decided to play stall ball.  The case became endless. Here's a handy rundown.

Some of the cases have settled. The city has given out millions and millions. The settlement amounts related to Pershing Park and another protest case have been historic. One case is still pending.

But now comes the real punch in the face. WaPo's Del Quentin Wilber is reporting that the District has paid out more than $2 million in attorney's fees for the lawyers representing the police officials behind Pershing Park. That's quite a defense fund!

Wilber writes:

"The tally came in a filing late Thursday in the District's federal court by lawyers representing four bystanders who were among those swept up and arrested in Pershing Park during demonstrations against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. 'The District continues to seek to drive up costs and prolong litigation in this case,' lawyers Daniel C. Schwartz and Jonathan Turley wrote in court papers, adding the city has 'spared no expense' in defending former Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham."

To give you a sense of the amazing gravy train this case has become, a recent court filing shows that ex-Chief Ramsey's lawyer, Mark H. Tuohey III, wants $80,628 in attorney fees for work done from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31, 2010.

In the filing, the District's lawyers justified the fee's amount this way: "During the four-month period for which fees are requested by this Motion, counsel prepared and responded to pleadings, participated in various aspects of pretrial discovery and trial preparation, and, in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General, counsel participated in many telephone conferences."

Trial preparation? Really? Phone calls?

The District has approved the money. The District Court judge in the case just has to sign off the funds.

*file photo of Ramsey by Darrow Montgomery.

A look at the jury form for the case appears to show that though the jury concluded that whistleblowing was a contributing factor in the discipline endured by all three plaintiffs, only former cop Sean McLaughlin's punishment couldn't have occurred for "independent reasons" other than spilling the beans. Which kind of sounds more like equivocation than exoneration. As for whether Lanier was found personally responsible for the retaliatory discipline, it looks as though that's what the jury thought. The jury had seven other police administrators they could have laid blame with (including former Chief Charles Ramsey) instead of, or in addition to, Lanier—but chose only her.

Since they found that she violated the District's whistleblower laws, she could be removed from her post. Though that would seem unlikely. MPD has several legal options it can pursue to get the verdict overturned.

Last week, it was announced that former Metropolitan Police Department Chief Charles Ramsey will be inducted into the inaugural class of George Mason University's Evidence-Based Policing Hall of Fame. George Mason's version of a policing Cooperstown hailed the former chief with a lengthy bio, concluding on its website:

"A nationally recognized innovator, educator and practitioner of community policing, Commissioner Ramsey is known to refocus police departments on crime fighting and crime prevention through a more accountable organizational structure, new equipment and technology, an enhanced strategy of community policing and, since September 11, 2001, new approaches to homeland security and counter-terrorism."

Unfortunately, Ramsey is also known for mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002 that had nothing to do with accountable organizational structures and enhancing strategies for community policing. Just as his induction was announced, a magistrate judge in U.S. District was setting up the possibility that Ramsey just might go down in history as the Mark McGuire McGwire of police chiefs. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola announced that he plans to personally question Ramsey—and many other police and OAG officials—in the court's long-running probe into missing and doctored evidence in the Pershing Park case.

At a status hearing yesterday in his second-floor courtroom, Judge Facciola outlined three possible penalties Ramsey and the others could face: perjury, obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence. In his order outlining the inquiry, Judge Facciola writes that Ramsey and Co. should "be advised of their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves."

Ramsey is definitely not in the clear.

At the conclusion of Facciola's inquest, the entire matter could end up being investigated anew by the Feds. Ramsey has already come under considerable scrutiny for his deposition testimony in which he swore he did not order the mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002; several police officials testified that they heard Ramsey give such an order. But the thrust of Facciola's inquiry will focus on the missing or doctored evidence which includes police radio recordings that go blank during the period in which the mass arrests took place, missing video evidence of police activities, and the missing running resume—the official log of all police activities that day. Other bits of a messy discovery process could enter into the investigation.

Walking into Facciola's courtroom yesterday, Ramsey's attorney Mark Tuohey expressed total confidence that his client is no slugger who suddenly came up short under oath like McGuire McGwire. "He has nothing to worry about," Tuohey said. "But he will comply with whatever the court wants."

The magistrate judge wants: Definitive answers as to how so much critical evidence could go missing in such a high profile case. The cases is already deep into extra innings.  The judge is embarking on an investigation that has stymied veteran judges and talented plaintiffs attorneys. The Partnership for Civil Justice, plaintiffs attorneys in one of the Pershing Park cases, first discovered the evidence abuses years ago. Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan went ballistic last summer over their findings. By the end of the year, Retired Judge Stanley Sporkin issued his own report on Pershing Park in which he could not exonerate any police official of wrongdoing [PDF]. Now, it's Facciola's turn.

Facciola, who was appointed to look into Pershing Park this past March, will most likely key on three attorneys who handled or mishandled the case (and the evidence): Office of Attorney General lawyer Tom Koger, MPD's top attorney Terrence Ryan and his deputy Ron Harris. Koger has been removed from the case having already come under scrutiny. The FOP has raised concerns about Ryan. Harris may have penned a false affidavit in the case. Testimony before Judge Facciola is set to begin Oct. 12.

And of course, there's Ramsey. What did he know? When did he know it? And how did evidence—the radio transmissions, the computer files, and the videotapes—get destroyed, lost or altered?

The one thing we know is how the former chief got into GMU's hall of fame. According to Cody Telep, a GMU grad student, Ramsey had been nominated by two professors—one who worked with Ramsey in Chicago, and another who works with him now in Philly where Ramsey is the city's police commissioner. No one from D.C. participated in the nomination process.

Telep tells City Desk that he knows nothing about Pershing Park. And it wouldn't be a matter of particular concern for the Hall. "Our hall of fame is more about rigorous scientific evaluation. It's about using science in policing," he says. "That's not as relevant to the specific qualifications for the hall of fame. I don't know the details of the case so that I can't comment on that."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT—"Strasburg Arrives: Let the Gouging Begin!," "D.C. Schools Now Model For West Virginia," "Fenty Booed At Dunbar Commencement," "How The Gun Lobby Shot Down D.C.'s Congressional Vote"

Howdy. Good thing Mayor Adrian Fenty has never given a speech about transparency and/or accountability in front of a roomful of reporters and government watchdogs. Then he may have heard some really sustained boos. The Examiner's Alan Suderman reports that during Monday's hearing on Councilmember Mary Cheh's open-government initiative: "Many speakers complained that routine requests for information were often ignored or improperly denied by city departments. Those kind of complaints are nothing new and aren't unique to the District. But the District's problems, Cheh and other speakers said, have only gotten worse under the administration of Mayor Adrian Fenty, who rose to power on a platform of accountability. The average number of Freedom of Information Act requests wholly denied by the city has quadrupled under Fenty, while the average number of requests has stayed constant to previous administrations, according to figures from Cheh's office. But Attorney General Peter Nickles said in a memo that records requests are becoming more complex as city resources to answer them are shrinking. He's asking the Council to approve legislation that would allow the city to extend the deadline for answering requests beyond the now-mandated 25 days." [emphasis added].

AFTER THE JUMP—Rhee faces probe, Fenty gets booed for real, more problems for DYRS, Helen Thomas retires, and much, much more!

D.C. School's Chancellor Michelle Rhee is facing a probe by the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance. WaPo's Bill Turque reports that the compliant alleges "that Rhee violated the law by soliciting donations from private foundations that reserved the right to pull their funding if there was a change in the school system's leadership. Cecily E. Collier-Montgomery, the office's director, told Robert V. Brannum on Friday, in response to his complaint, that there was 'reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred' and that 'a full investigation is warranted in this matter.' Collier-Montgomery's finding was first reported over the weekend by WTTG (Channel 5). Rhee raised $64.5 million from four private foundations (Broad, Walton, Robertson and Arnold) to underwrite pay raises and performance bonuses under the new contract ratified last week by the Washington Teachers' Union. The foundations, which have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to education initiatives across the country, stipulated in letters that they reserved the right to review their commitments if there was a "material change" in the D.C. school system's leadership. Brannum, president of the D.C. Federation of Civic Associations and a supporter of D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray's mayoral campaign, alleges that Rhee contrived to protect her job by accepting the leadership clause as a condition of the private funding — constituting a direct personal financial benefit. In a statement Monday, Rhee spokeswoman Jennifer Calloway said the allegation is without merit. 'The chancellor did not seek that condition and in fact wanted unconditional funding. She had no role or choice in the conditions the funders decided to impose,' Calloway said."

WAPO EDIT BOARD calls BS on the Rhee probe (which Jonetta Rose Barras did in the Examiner yesterday): "IN ANY OTHER city, an official who manages to raise millions of dollars from credible organizations to improve public schools would get a commendation. Not so in the District of Columbia, where the reward for such effort is a suggestion of wrongdoing. Equally incredible is that officials in the city's Office of Campaign Finance are actually investigating these half-baked allegations against Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee. Let's hope reality sets in before there is real harm to education reform. Ms. Rhee has been put on notice that she is being investigated in connection with the solicitation of private foundation grants to help fund the new teacher contract. Four nonprofit groups have pledged $64.5 million to help underwrite raises and bonuses for D.C. teachers; as is standard in such donations, the donors have conditioned the money on consistency in leadership and the reform agenda. That, though, constitutes a conflict of interest to Robert Vinson Brannum, a civic activist and fierce critic of Ms. Rhee and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who brought the June 2 complaint. It's hard to think that anyone could conclude that Ms. Rhee sought these monies to ensure her continued employ as schools chancellor. Nonetheless, the Office of Campaign Finance concluded there may be 'reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred,' and it warned Ms. Rhee of the possible need for 'subpoena, depositions, interrogatories, interviews and audits.'"

NOW IT'S NINE: The Examiner's Bill Myers reports that at least nine District wards have been charged with murder: "Last week, authorities charged 16-year-old Javon Hale with murder in the May 28 shooting death of day laborer Manuel Sanchez. Hale had been committed to the custody of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services and was out from a private group home on a weekend pass, a source with knowledge of his background told The Washington Examiner. Hale is at least the ninth juvenile ward to have been charged with murder since the beginning of the year. His juvenile history was first reported by Washington Post columnist Colbert King. Another city ward, 17-year-old Durand Lucas, was killed Saturday, shot down in the wee hours in Anacostia. He is at least the third juvenile offender to have been killed this year while in city custody."

FENTY BOOED AT DUNBAR COMMENCEMENT: WJLA has the video and the story on Fenty's rough moment just before giving the commencement address at Dunbar. But were politics at play? Vincent Gray thinks so. WJLA reports: "Both Mayor Fenty and Council Chairman Vincent Gray appeared at the event. Gray said he had initially been invited to deliver the commencement address, but was told a few weeks ago that he would only deliver welcoming remarks. Gray, a Dunbar graduate who is challenging Fenty in the September Democratic mayoral primary, suspects politics determined who actually spoke. His spokesperson, Doxie McCoy, says she believes Gray's initial invite came from a panel of students and teachers. "I received some indication a number of weeks ago that the students and people associated with the school would like to have me as the commencement speaker," Gray told ABC 7 News. Some students concur. They wanted Gray, less for his politics than his history. 'I did cause he was a graduate of Dunbar Senior High School,' said Dunbar grad Monica Matthews." Key quotes: "The confusion about the top speaking slot led to some speculation. 'I don't know,' Gray said. 'I guess these decisions are made by the Chancellor and the Mayor. I don't know.' As for Mayor Fenty: 'I didn't even know there was an issue about the speaker. I'm sorry if there is an issue because the day belongs to the kids.'" More coverage via D.C. Wire, DeBonis.

DISTRICT MAY BE RUNNING SOUTHEAST HOSPITAL: D.C. Wire's Tim Craig reports that "The District will auction off the United Medical Center property in Southeast Washington next month unless an agreement can be reached with the current owner, Specialty Hospitals of America, over how best to salvage the troubled facility. Attorney General Peter Nickles filed a foreclosure notice last week stating that the auction would be held July 9 on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building. Nickles has accused Specialty of defaulting on its lease by failing to pay its bills on time. The city is in talks with attorneys for Specialty to try to reach an agreement, but Nickles said the foreclosure notice was needed to set "an end date" for the talks. If an agreement is not reached, Nickles said, the city will seize the 17-acre United Medical Center property at the auction and operate it as a city-run hospital until a new owner can be found."

METRO MESS: Yesterday, a 10-car train was put on the Green Line thus violating Metro's mandated 8-car train limit. WTOP reports: "The problem? Metro trains are supposed to be a maximum of eight cars — so two cars were stuck in the tunnel while the train pulled into the station. No one was able to get on those last two cars. The long train made it through eight stations before it was finally taken out of service at the Waterfront station. Metro's Steven Taubenkibel says a station manager contacted the Command Center to report the long train. Metro has removed five employees from service while an investigation takes place. The Tri-State Oversight Committee has been notified. This isn't the first time a 10-car train has made its way onto the Green Line. Last August, a 10-car train left the Greenbelt Station and was in service for about 20 minutes before a passenger alerted the train operator about the long train."

FENTY MAILING: Have you received your Fenty campaign pamphlet? D.C. Wire's Nikita Stewart reports that a Fenty media blitz is underway: "Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who hit black radio stations with a go-go advertising campaign Memorial Day weekend, has now sent voters what appears to be his first mass mailing. The campaign literature boasts that Fenty is 'getting results' and 'getting things done.' It appears to embrace Fenty's reputation for being arrogant and for not working with other elected officials — an approach that his advisers are hoping will put a positive spin on that image and will register with voters. In large type inside, it reads, 'If it weren't for Mayor Fenty's leadership ... we'd still be waiting for' the modernization of schools, development and recreation centers and playgrounds." Meanwhile, Gray is endorsed by Alice Rivlin, who headed up the financial control board.

SHARON PRATT WELCOMES BEING RELEVANT AGAIN: WaPo's Mike DeBonis interviewed the former mayor at a Gray fundraiser over the weekend. She seemed more than ready to defend Gray's work in her administration: ''That's a debate we can win,' Pratt said Sunday evening at a Gray fundraiser. 'That's a debate that Vince can win hands down.' The Department of Human Services in Gray's directorial days encompassed myriad social programs totaling more than $1 billion in yearly spending — one-third of the city budget at the time. What was once under Gray's purview is now split between not only the human services department, but the Department of Health, the Department of Health Care Finance, the Department on Disability Services, the Child and Family Services Agency, and the Department of Mental Health, among other agencies. The ex-mayor — who entered office as Sharon Pratt Dixon, left office as Sharon Pratt Kelly, and now, in business as a consultant, is simply Sharon Pratt — says that in spite of the fiscal challenges Fenty alluded to, she and Gray can boast a record of reform. 'We were out there early on providing disposable needles and condoms, and we were able to stem the tide of HIV/AIDS,' Pratt said. 'We brought that infant mortality rate down, that was under Vince's leadership. We had terrific prenatal care programs, and we dealt with a whole lot of the ongoing issues that we inherited in a compressed period of time....There's almost not an issue that ultimately that we didn't address. That was Vince.'"

HECHT'S WAREHOUSE is still in limbo as a judge stalls the New York Ave NE building's foreclosure proceedings.

CARJACKING: NC8 has a follow-up on the retired cop's carjacking over the weekend. Apparently, the cop returned fire on his assailants. Is that legal?

CHIEF RAMSEY: Ex-D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey still doesn't like D.C. Police Union chief Kristopher Baumann. He called him a bad name in a Philly newspaper. WaPo's Mike DeBonis reports: "Old animosities were rekindled in a Philadelphia Daily News story published today on the high legal and back-pay bills exacted by police officers fired by Ramsey, now in charge of the Philly police, and subsequently reinstated. Reporter David Gambacorta consulted D.C. police union chief Kristopher Baumann, who drew on his many years of watchdogging the Ramsey-led Metropolitan Police Department in offering this assessment: 'It's not that hard to fire a police officer. What Ramsey cannot do is fire them appropriately.' The top cop's retort: 'He's a [expletive], and I don't care if you quote me on that.'"

BWI: WAMU reports that full-body scans are coming to BWI.

HELEN THOMAS: Yesterday, the long-time reporter and headache to multiple presidents and press secretaries retired over her stupid anti-Israel remarks. Dana Milbank writes: "It was a sad end to a storied career. You'll find no defense here of her anti-Semitic suggestion that Jews should 'get the hell out of Palestine' and 'go home' to Poland and Germany — where they were slaughtered by the millions. There's no excuse for that, and Thomas deserved what she got. Yet the White House press corps will be diminished without Helen front and center, and not only because she was in that job before the current president was born. She brought a ferocity to her questioning that has eluded too many in subsequent generations. At a time when others were getting cozy with sources, her crabby, unrelenting hostility was refreshing. 'When are you going to get out of Afghanistan?' she challenged President Obama two weeks ago. 'Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism, 'If we don't go there, they'll all come here.''"

MAYOR'S SCHEDULE:

3:00 p.m. Remarks
Personnel Announcement
Location: 825 North Capitol Street, NE

During his tenure as police chief, Charles H. Ramsey faced countless challenges from coordinating an emergency response on 9/11 to helping to track down the D.C. Sniper. Of course, his job had other lower profile responsibilities like crime fighting and answering then-Councilmember Kathy Patterson's tough questioning.

So what can this veteran cop not handle?

Being deposed (again) about the mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002. Or at least being deposed (again) without some extra help. A few days ago, Ramsey's powerful attorney Mark H. Tuohey sought a protective order for the chief asking that Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola sit in on the deposition.

In other words, Ramsey did not want to be deposed by plaintiffs lawyers without a federal judge chaperoning the proceedings. In public filings, Tuohey laid out a lengthy argument for why Ramsey needs such protection.

Tuohey argued that police officials had been subjected to "wasteful" and "harassing" depositions. On March 12, Assistant Chief Peter Newsham was deposed.  Tuohey particularly objected to plaintiffs lawyers grilling Newsham about this snowball incident in which Det. Michael Baylor pulled a gun during a snowball fight.

Initially, Newsham told the press—including City Desk—that the officer did not draw his weapon.  Newsham soon changed his position as more video and photographic evidence became known. It was enough of a quirk to draw some heated questioning from plaintiffs lawyers.

Tuohey characterized the questioning of Newsham as harassment and abuse. He writes that he expects that the Newsham deposition was a mere "preview of the free-for-all and waste of time in store for Ramsey."

Tuohey also argues that Ramsey is a busy guy and shouldn't be subjected to prolonged questioning: "Ramsey is currently police commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. It is not easy for him to take time away from that demanding post, especially considering how inefficient and unfocused the depositions have been thus far."

Tuohey has to realize that Ramsey is not going to be questioned about a snowball fight. Nor is this deposition going to be a waste of time. No, he's filibustering for good reason, a reason not stated in his filing. Ramsey is going to be questioned about the recent testimony by two police officials who stated that Ramsey gave the mass arrest order for Pershing Park.

Plaintiffs lawyers, citing those police officials, are going to ask Ramsey: Did you tell your subordinates to "lock those motherfuckers up?"

Judge Facciola did not buy Tuohey's arguments. Today, he rejected the motion for a protective order. The judge wrote:

"I cannot believe that after seven years, the competent counsel who represent the parties in this case cannot conduct a deposition without adult supervision."

Ramsey's deposition is scheduled for March 26.

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

"Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the panel, held that the officers did not “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,” and that the department’s conduct did not violate any contractual obligation between the officers and the city."

In other words, Judge Randolph is saying that it's ok for a police supervisor to be an alleged asshole. Washington City Paper reported on Atcheson's conduct after he got promoted to captain in Feb. 2008. The police department had originally fired Atcheson for his conduct. But then-Chief Charles Ramsey reinstated the official, giving him a 30-day suspension.

Here's some of what Atcheson allegedly told the six cops:

*“You aren’t shit.…You don’t want me to be on your ass every day, you stupid fuck."

*he referred to a female captain as a "cunt."

*he referred to another officer as a "piece of shit."

*he referred to another cop as "a piece of shit motherfucker."

The case appears to be over. Another officer had already won a judgement against Atcheson in a separate case. That officer was awarded $225,000, according to Legal Times.

We hear that Atcheson has not changed his ways.

In this morning's hearing in U.S. District Court, Judge Emmet Sullivan edged ever closer to referring the Pershing Park case to the Department of Justice—signaling he's close to handing the matter over to Attorney General Eric Holder.

But first, Sullivan wants to order up one more investigative tool at his disposal: some serious tech support.

Following up on the recommendations in the Sporkin Report, Sullivan ordered that he would hire a forensic examiner to investigate the missing and/or destroyed evidence in the case. He added that the examiner would be selected based on recommendations from both parties and would be paid for by the District.

It was unclear whether the forensic examiner would study both the missing running resume issue and the gaps in the radio tapes from the mass arrests in Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002.

"I think it should be someone appointed at the discretion of the court," Sullivan stated. "And the city is going to pay for it."

In the days leading up to the hearing, tensions had see-sawed among the parties. Two days ago, an $8.25 million settlement was reached between the 400 or so plaintiffs in the Barham case and the Office of the Attorney General. But settlement talks in the remaining case, the Chang case, appeared to have stalled.

AG Peter Nickles submitted several filings late last night. In one, he filed a motion to halt all depositions.

Before Judge Sullivan, Nickles played up his pro-bono days when he was the one battling government corruption; he clearly hates the fact that he's now seen as the bad guy. At least twice, he stressed that his reputation is on the line.

"I'm not trying to hide anything," Nickles insisted, later telling Judge Sullivan, "I'm trying to clear the air here. You're the boss."

To which Sullivan replied: "That's exactly right. And we're clear about that."

And the Boss still wants answers to the mystery of what happened to the running resume and the radio tapes. In addition to the hiring of the forensic examiner, Sullivan made other decisions critical to this fact-finding mission.

Sullivan denied Nickles' attempt to halt depositions. At the request of the U.S. Park Police attorney, he granted that defense lawyers could depose a key witness, Det. Paul Hustler, who had testified in an affidavit that he heard Chief Charles Ramsey give the arrest order in Pershing Park.

Changing his stance from last night's filings and his recent protective order requests, Nickles suddenly warmed to the idea of more depositions. "Discovery can go on forever," he told Sullivan.

Sullivan moved up the trial to date a month–to September 2010. Chang plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley said he would be ready to go to trial.

Sullivan also made clear that no settlement would prevent sanctions in the case nor would it prevent him from referring the matter to criminal authorities.

Sullivan spent serious time questioning lawyers about whether he should go ahead and refer the matter to Holder. Barham plaintiffs attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard said it was time. Turley agreed and argued that the criminal investigation would not interrupt the civil proceedings in his case.

Nickles told Sullivan that he believed the forensics examiner should do their work first before any referrals were made. "I think it's better to have more knowledge," Nickles argued.

Sullivan agreed to wait to see what the forensics examiner finds.

No matter what happens, Turley is itching for a trial. He told Sullivan that despite all the publicity the case has generated, a new law from the D.C. Council and millions in settlement money, one recently deposed cop—Officer Michael Smith—testified that he thinks he did nothing wrong that day in Pershing Park and would do it all over again.

"We're going to fight vigorously to get these witnesses and this evidence before a federal jury," Turley said after the hearing.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

*follow me on Twitter.

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.

On September 27, 2002, D.C. Police surrounded some 400 individuals in Pershing Park. Those individuals were rounded up without warning, arrested, and transferred to the police academy where they were hogtied for hours [See our Boss Hogtie cover story on the incident].

Sally Norton, a nurse in town for a conference at the nearby Marriott, had decided to check out the activity in the park on her walk back from breakfast with a colleague.

"It all looked very peaceful," she tells City Desk today. "We had about 10 minutes before the conference started. We went to leave...by then they had formed a perimeter and they wouldn’t let us leave. We pointed out that we are right here at the Marriott;  it didn’t matter. We tried about six or seven other places. Please let us leave. They either said we couldn’t leave or they didn’t speak to us."

Norton would be arrested and detained for 12 hours. John Passacantando, 48, says on that morning he had wandered into the park to perhaps catch a speaker or listen to some music. He ended up being arrested and hogtied—cuffed right wrist to left ankle—on a gym mat for 17 hours.

"This was literally for being in the park," Passacantando recalls. "I swore to myself that when I got out of there I would find the best lawyers in the land and do everything I could to make sure this didn’t happen to anyone else.... It was my duty to fight back."

Passacantando, Norton, and hundreds of other citizens sought out the Partnership for Civil Justice, a local law firm that specializes in civil rights cases. Today, after more than seven years of  litigation, the plaintiffs announced a settlement which includes an $8.25 million District payout and a series of stipulations concerning evidence storage that the Office of Attorney General must follow.

Norton and Passcantando say they are pleased with their case's resolution.

"I think good police officers see this all over the country and say, 'yeah we get it,'" Passacantando says. "D.C. made a big mistake that day."

Even in the moments after the arrest order was given, police officers questioned whether they were lawful. In a subsequent police investigation, U.S. Park Police Captain Rick Murphy stated that he told one police official "that he would not arrest the protesters in the park as their conduct did not meet the criteria for mass arrests."

After the arrests, District lawyers refused to prosecute a single case stemming from Pershing Park.

Within the next two years, the D.C. Council investigated Pershing Park and released their own scathing assessment. The Council concluded that then-Chief Charles Ramsey had lied, and police officials had engaged in a cover-up of the incident [PDF].

Eventually, the case became all about the cover up. A federal judge would slam the the Office of the Attorney General and the D.C. Police Department's general counsel for withholding thousands of pages of discovery documents. The police department's running resume, a moment-by-moment chronicling of police activity on Sept. 27, went missing. Radio dispatches turned over to plaintiffs contained mysterious gaps.

Through it all, the plaintiffs say they remained committed to seeing the case to a favorable conclusion.

“I wanted to know... that we extracted as much change as possible, that there really was going to be a price to pay for a police force to ever do this again," Passacantando says. "I feel like that’s what we accomplished.”

Norton, who is an associate professor of nursing at the University of Rochester, monitored the case online. She says the department's conduct in the case shocked her. “How do you systematically destroy all the running resumes? How do they all get lost? For them to sort of say first there was no record and then oh, we lost it, there’s no explanation for that," Norton says.

Those questions remain active and may be resolved with the one remaining Pershing Park case still active in federal court.

Looking back on the seven years since Pershing Park, Norton says the has experienced changed her.

“I have a lot less naivete about the process," Norton says. "I always gave the police the benefit of the doubt and I still do, but it’s not unquestioned anymore because of my experience in Washington, DC. It’s a sorry-ass day when you can’t walk across D.C. from a restaurant without being arrested and hogtied and detained illegally."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

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.

Late last Friday, Ret. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin's investigative report [PDF] on Pershing Park was made public. The long-awaited document totaled 18 pages and included findings based on interviews with 14 individuals. Legal Times declared the report's conclusions "fairly modest." The report found  no smoking gun, WaPo observed. After a quick read of the report, we found much to admire in its findings.

On closer inspection, the Sporkin Report includes startling new testimony and/or conflicting statements from witnesses. The report will surely not be the last word on the missing evidence.  Let's review.

Sgt. Douglas Jones had previously testified that the running resume for the mass arrests in Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002 had to exist. Jones had stated that there were at least a dozen hard copies made along with two electronic copies. AG Peter Nickles had previously tried to marginalize Jones' testimony. Sporkin does no such thing.

For Sporkin, Jones elaborates further on the running-resume issue. The report states:

"Sgt. Jones said that Neil Trugman, his superior at the time, came to him around October or November 2002 and asked for the file location for the Running Resume, how to access the system, and the username and password. Trugman further asked that the information not be emailed.

Sgt. Jones found this to be unusual because no one had asked in the past for such directions. Sgt. Jones believes (but is not certain) it was at this time he provided Mr. Trugman with a hard copy of the September 27, 2002 Running Resume along with the requested directions."

Jones' testimony cries out for further inquiry. Trugman, Sporkin notes, "has no recollection of these events."

Jones states that for the running resume not to be on some MPD server is unusual. "For this to happen he said it had to be intentionally erased," Sporkin wrote. "He, however, had no basis to say that it was done for an improper purpose. No one was able to give us a reason as to its disappearance from the system."

The document destruction narrative extends beyond Jones' testimony in the Sporkin Report.

The running resume—a minute by minute accounting of police activity—was generated within the D.C. Police Department's command center. During Pershing Park, Stephen Gaffigan was charged with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the command center. Cecilia Tilghman, Gaffigan's personal assistant, stated in the Sporkin report that documents were destroyed.

After Gaffigan left the department, Tilghman believed that Rai Howell, the command center's interim director, "threw away lots of Mr. Gaffigan's materials," the report states.

Howell, the report states, "denied destroying any of Mr. Gaffigan's records." But then Howell confirms that a running resume existed for Pershing Park:

"She went on to say that she can specifically remember seeing the September 2002 Running Resume in hard copy. She could not recall when she saw it or remember anything specific about it. Ms. Howell also believes that after the event copies of the Running Resume were delivered to the Department's top officials."

Sporkin also interviewed George Crawford, a computer specialist with the D.C. Police Department. In the report, Crawford affirms Jones' testimony as well, stating that it was standard practice for at least 15 hard copies of the running resume to be sent to Mr. Gaffigan. Crawford found it "hard to believe" that the running resume had been erased from the computer system.

Crawford also admits to destroying documents at Howell's request. The admission, as recounted in the Sporkin Report,  is a stunner:

"Rai Howell asked Mr. Crawford to discard boxes containing materials formerly belonging to Mr. Gaffigan, when he, Gaffigan, left. Mr. Crawford stated that he didn't look at the documents or the tapes, but simply did as he was told. He shredded the papers and hit the tapes with magnets as instructed. Rai Howell denies giving any such instruction."

The report details former-Chief Charles Ramsey's recollections when called by Sporkin and Co. Ramsey stated that he is 99 percent sure he never saw the running resume and never instructed anyone to destroy such a document or the radio tapes. He went on to speak very highly of Gaffigan, Trugman, and Jones. "The Chief was impressed with Sgt. Jones," the report states. "He said it was Sgt. Jones who came up with the idea for creating the Joint Command Center."

The report moves on to discuss the gaps in the radio tapes from Sept. 27. Sporkin leads with two admissions from District lawyers. Both OAG attorney Tom Koger and D.C. Police Department lawyer Ron Harris admitted that they never listened to the tapes prior to handing them over to plaintiffs lawyers.

What lawyer doesn't review evidence they are turning over to opposing counsel?

As for whether there are large gaps or small gaps on the radio tapes, this is still a matter of some debate. Sporkin called for the District to hire an outside expert to review the tapes.

One person Sporkin's staff could not interview was Denise Alexander. Alexander had previously submitted an affidavit in the Pershing Park cases declaring that the radio tapes contained no gaps. Her testimony was later contradicted by a police official. Sporkin was told that she was on "personal leave."

This morning, City Desk found Alexander at her desk at the District's Office of Unified Communications. When asked why she had failed to meet with Sporkin, she put us on hold and then passed us on to another OUC staffer. "We're in the middle of something," the staffer said. "She's unwilling to speak with you."

There may be enough evidence in the Sporkin Report to start calling for federal law enforcement to finally investigate. Councilmember Mary Cheh believes the case should be sent to the feds.

Plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley tells City Desk: "The report reaffirms the positions of the plaintiffs, this evidence was presumptively destroyed on purpose and that it was not accidental....The report contains glaring conflicts in the statements of District officials. Those allegations and those conflicts will have to be addressed in a future investigation as well as discovery in this case."

*follow me on Twitter.

What's the worst editorial that's run in the Washington Post in the last 10 years? I have a nominee.

On November 23, the District settled a class-action lawsuit for $13.7 million. The suit had alleged that more than 600 citizens were falsely arrested surrounding the anti-globalization protests in April 2000. Not only were these citizens falsely arrested, but a raid on one of the protesters' offices was proved to be bogus. At the time, D.C. police brass alleged that they found Molotov cocktail materials.

Both the raid and the arrests have proven to be very costly mistakes for the District and lead to policies that set the stage for Pershing Park. Now, WaPo is stuck with an editorial that got it all so wrong. On April 19, 2000, the board published an editorial entitled: "Hail to the Chief—and His Cops."

In light of the historic settlement, WaPo should run a correction on its editorial page.

WaPo wrote in its now infamous editorial:

"If any groups deserve high marks, they are the disciplined men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department and other law enforcement agencies who served under D.C. Chief Charles Ramsey. The city should be grateful for the professional manner in which they handled the week-long protests....The police prepared for the demonstrations for months, and it showed."

What goes unmentioned: the false arrests which included the bogus arrest of one of the paper's own photographers, Pulitzer winner Carol Guzy.

The AP wrote at the time:

"Police arrested Carol Guzy Saturday after escorting her from a cordoned-off area where they had taken into custody demonstrators protesting policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Associated Press photographer Kamenko Pajic said officers took him and Guzy from the protest area, but police released him before arresting Guzy. She is among Post photographers who won this year's Pulitzer for feature photography for their pictures of Kosovo refugees.

Pajic said it was unclear to him what prompted the arrest of Guzy, who was behind him as they were being led away. He turned and photographed her being handcuffed.

Police spokesman Sgt. Joseph Gentile said Guzy was charged with parading without a permit, just like the other protesters. He would not say why a journalist was arrested along with the marchers.

Pajic and Guzy were among several news photographers who had stayed in the cordoned-off area after police began arresting protesters.

Post officials declined comment Saturday night."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Attorney General Peter Nickles & Co. fought over whether plaintiffs could depose a government witness. They lost that battle and the deposition provided devastating evidence of more discovery abuses.

The losing fight over the depo has yet to put a dent in Nickles' M.O. The AG has not backed down from further stonewalling in the cases. In a curious move, the OAG argued in federal court filings that plaintiffs should return 211 pages of documents claiming that they were "mistakenly produced." The OAG contended that these documents were attorney-client work product.

Last night, Legal Times reported that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled against Nickles on the matter.

So what are these mystery docs?

Legal Times wrote in its piece that Sullivan's ruling "followed a flurry of filings" asking the judge to "stop the plaintiffs from using the documents in discovery or to issue an order that would keep any information related to the documents out of the public eye."

Legal Times cited one filing in which city lawyers argued: "In addition to the privileged nature of the communications, several of the documents include statements by high-ranking officials in the District of Columbia Government which, if disclosed to the public, would only serve to embarrass while not shedding light on any matter of controversy in this case."

Plaintiffs attorneys argued in their response:

This is yet another bald attempt by the District to forestall and stymie Plaintiffs' discovery efforts. Faced with only six months of resumed discovery, the District has unleashed a torrent of objections and privilege assertions, including forcing the Court to issue an emergency order to force compliance with a deposition demand.

The plaintiffs' attorneys go on to contend that the OAG is only pressing for those documents because they would be used during a deposition of city lawyer Stacey Anderson, set to be taken this Thursday. They call the document request "farcical" and illustrative of an "effort to continue its prior delaying and dilatory tactics."

Among the documents the OAG wanted back were documents the office turned over on July 22.

Plaintiffs' attorneys contend that the documents were used in exhibits and discussed multiple times between the parties; to prove their point, they produced e-mails in which OAG attorneys discuss the documents.

The documents in question may point to then-Chief Charles Ramsey's direct involvement in ordering the Sept. 27, 2002, mass arrests, and the ensuing cover-up (the D.C. Council concluded in its investigation that Ramsey had participated in a lame attempt to obscure his involvement).

One Mystery Doc Revealed!

The attorneys point to one document in particular as the cause of Nickles' latest fight: "Prosec 00055." It's a handwritten entry that shows Ramsey's involvement in the decision to make the Sept. 27 mass arrests. The entry appears to be a lawyer's record of an assistant chief's statements concerning that day's events. It appears to place Ramsey in the middle of the decision-making—that he either ordered or "needed to make arrests."

To put "Prosec 00055" in context, the attorneys had filed excerpts of Ramsey's deposition along with testimony from several other police officials. The excerpts focus on the decision to make the arrests, why that decision was made, and who was involved in that decision.

Read then-Executive Assistant Chief Michael Fitzgerald's testimony before the D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee. Fitzgerald states that he was OK with the mass arrests.

Read Ramsey's deposition from September 2007. Ramsey states that he thought the arrests were OK.

Read then-Assistant Chief Alfred Broadbent Jr.'s deposition from October 2007. Broadbent states that he advised against the arrests.

Chairing the 12-member panel – which is filled with experts from the fields of "law enforcement, diversity, community relations, and conflict resolution," according to the Cambridge PD press release – is Chuck Wexler, executive director of the D.C.-based Police Executive Research Forum. Other members: Charles Ramsey, the former D.C. police chief, Terrance Gainer, the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms; and Aaron David Miller, a public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center who has advised six secretaries of state on the conflict in the Middle East, which should help, except that that conflict is still going strong.

"I'm just hoping to make sense of this thing," Wexler tells the Washington Post. "This is one of those cases where everyone has an opinion about it. It's almost like some kind of Rorschach test. People see it and they read into it what they want."

It's all well and good to have a committee meet and noodle around big uncomfortable things. But the panel is going to have to get down lower and dirtier than the press release suggests it will if it's going to come up with anything useful.

Consider the phrasing of one of the questions the panel will take up: "How does the Cambridge Police Department take this event and use it as an opportunity to modify its operational procedures: obtain a better appreciation of the complexities associated with policing in a very complex social setting: gaining a much deeper appreciation of interactive social skills, and so on?"

A better appreciation of the complexities associated with policing in a very complex social setting? You mean, white policing on black "suspects"? Racial profiling? Is that what that means?