IN CASE YOU MISSED IT---"Peter Nickles: I Will Not Call You Back," "Video: Is Cleveland Park Dead?" and "The Pershing Park Case: Did A District Official Commit Perjury?"

Morning all. A big thanks to the local politico reporters and Wilson Building staffers who a) Jokingly thought I had become LL; b) Wished me luck in compiling the must-read briefing on local politics; and c) failed to mention the "resident" controversy from yesterday. A few local heavyweights inquired about LL's bike ride to Dewey Beach and wondered if he had made it to the Rusty Rudder safely. I reached LL via e-mail. Here is what he wrote about his trek:

"Uh, well, we left gonzaga HS at 4:30 a.m. then took back roads to just across the severn river in annapolis where we were bused across the bay bridge to where 50 meets 404. it started out looking like it was going to be cloudy and rain all day, but by the time we crossed the bridge the clouds were gone and the sun was shining. so it was really hot. the route kinda sucked. its exactly the same as driving; we rode on the shoulder of these roads the whole time, trucks whizzing pasy, chickenshit in the air, no real scenery of note. but it was for a good cause--autism research--and it was pretty well run, lots of rest stops with powerbars and water and bananas and all that stuff. The first leg I did pretty fast, finishing 35 mi in about two and a half hours. the second leg was somewhat slower---five and a half hours to do 65 mi to Bethany Beach--but i was among the first half of finishers (at 2:15 p.m.) on my junky old bike. so yeah, it was good."

Now on to the news: Councilmember Phil Mendelson has joined colleague Councilmember Mary Cheh in calling for AG Peter Nickles to resign. Cheh spoke out to City Desk last Friday. So what has provoked the councilmembers? The OAG's conduct in a Pershing Park lawsuit in which police evidence has gone missing and/or has been destroyed, among other discovery problems. The U.S. District Court judge in the case has promised painful sanctions, has called on the D.C. Council to investigate the matter, and ordered Nickles to provide a sworn statement explaining his office's conduct. The Examiner's Bill Myers gets Mendo on the record calling for Nickles to go. Nickles offers his usual bulldog-with-rabies react: "It's politics at its worst. They have no idea what's going on." What's going on is available via transcript. News Channel 8's Bruce DePuyt has Cheh and Nickles on the Pershing Park issue. Nickles says he is "troubled" by the missing evidence, and will follow the law. Cheh stands by her comments and says D.C. needs a new attorney general.

LEAD TROUBLES: WaPo is reporting that House investigators have found many more children than previously reported had high levels of lead in their blood during the drinking water crisis from a few years ago. Key graphs: "Local officials could not say Monday whether some children with unsafe lead exposure have gone without intervention to reduce their health risks. The CDC and city health department had reported dangerously high lead levels in 193 children in 2003, the worst year for high concentrations of lead in city tap water. But lab data gathered by congressional investigators this year show that the actual number was 486 children."

AFTER THE JUMP: More public transpo issues, D.C. Police are getting some federal dough, Legal Seafood is fighting to stay inside National Reagan National Airport, WaPo stands up for press freedoms(!) and much, much more.

PUBLIC TRANSPO continues its stretch of bad press. Last night a man was stabbed at Union Station, News Channel 8 reports. It is unclear whether the man was stabbed on a train or on a platform. The man was taken to an area hospital. A female suspect was taken into custody. (Also reporting: WTOP). During rush hour, doors opened on a moving Metro train. Scary. WaPo reports that the incident occurred on an Orange Line train. No injuries were reported and the train was promptly taken out of service. Key graph: "A passenger, who requested anonymity because he is restricted from speaking to the media in his job as a House aide, said that the left panel in the middle door of a middle car came open and that the door closed as soon as the operator hit the brakes."

WJLA is reporting that 27 bus shelters have been busted recently. A DDOT source speculates that this appears to be the work of one person: "Metropolitan police will be handling the investigation. They say the damaged bus shelters are located across the city from Upper Northwest across the Potomac and into Southeast. Clear Channel, the company that began installing the shelters two years ago, said the first damage reports started coming in Sunday and then Monday the number of vandalized shelters passed the two dozen mark."

D.C. cops are getting a bit boost from the feds. Police coffers will see an increase of $12 million from a federal grant. The money will be used to hire an additional 50 officers. News Channel 8 reports this may not necessarily boost the rank and file's numbers: "At the same time the department is getting more officers, the D.C. Council passed a budget calling for a hiring freeze in the department. Over time, it will result in less officers all together. 'Whatever number we ended up at, we're now 50 more than that and that's great news,' said Fenty." NBC4 has a brief on the boost.

An Inspector General's audit has found that the District's financial office has failed to collect $750,000 in motor fuel taxes during the past couple years, the Examiner's Michael Neibauer reports. The news is kinda ironic: "The Office of the Inspector General 'identified uncollected motor fuel tax revenues of about $733,000 for six years,' said the audit, dated July 26. The District's Office of Tax and Revenue, auditors reported, 'has not been aggressively pursuing potential revenues,' as it never followed up with motor fuel importers who didn't pay. The audit was issued July 26, five days before the council voted to increase the gasoline tax from 20 cents to 23.5 cents per gallon."

WaPo is reporting that Legal Seafoods is seeking a court order to stop airport officials from kicking them out of Reagan National Airport's choice Terminal C locale. The chain says it's being pushed out to make way for a steakhouse. Nerdy highlight: "Owner Roger Berkowitz says the problems started last year during lease negotiations with officials from Westfield Concessions Management, the Los Angeles-based company that oversees retail stores and restaurants at National and at Dulles International Airport. He said Westfield encouraged the seafood chain to spend $2.3 million to expand, primarily by taking over the space of a bookstore next door. Berkowitz said he agreed to make the changes but insisted that the seafood chain pocket any construction savings. At the time, he said, construction costs were plummeting due to the weak economy." Of course, there's more.

Gov. Tim Kaine has told families of the Virgina Tech massacre victims that he will not reconvene his investigatory panel. The families had urged him to re-investigate the shootings in light of the shooter's mental health records being found. WaPo reports that more than 60 families and victims had signed a letter urging Kaine to bring the panel back. Key graphs:

"In an e-mail to families sent about noon Monday, Mark Rubin, the governor's counselor, ruled out reconvening the panel.

'While we would not rule out inviting willing members of the Panel to review proposed revisions to the report, we are sensitive that there are families who expressly do not want to reconvene the Panel,' he wrote. 'Our hope is that the current process for revisions will satisfy the need for a thorough report without upsetting families like your own any further.'

But Rubin added that Kaine will accept any factual corrections families wish to make to the report until Aug. 19."

PEGGY COOPER CAFRITZ---one of the District's most impressive politicos---talks about last week's fire that destroyed her home. She tells FOX5: "We'll always find the light, you know. We went through an exercise of looking through the plural of 'phoenix' and we found it, and it's 'phoenixes' and as I told others, that's exactly who my children and I are and will be." WUSA's Bruce Johnson had the exclusive first interview and some news on the fire: "Sources tell 9NEWS NOW that WASA had four reports of low water pressure in the area in the past year. At least two hydrants are clearly marked out of service." Let's hear it for "sources" whoever they are!

WaPo Editorial Board slams the D.C. Council's penchant for closed-door meetings. A must read for....fans of Sherwood, Segraves and any another local reporter who has pounded on those closed doors. Key graph: "THE D.C. COUNCIL was able to shut the public out of its recent budget deliberations because supposedly, it wasn't really taking action. Never mind that all the big decisions were being made behind those closed doors. That such an outrage could occur is the latest example of why the District is viewed as having one of the most worthless open-meetings laws in the country and why that law needs to be changed."

FENTY'S SCHEDULE:

10:45 a.m. Remarks
Demolition at Gage Eckington Elementary School
Location: Site of Former Gage Eckington Elementary School
2025 3rd Street, NW

4:00 p.m. Remarks
Petworth Recreation Center Ribbon Cutting
Location: 801 Taylor Street, NW

7:30 p.m. Remarks
79th Grand Chapter Meeting of Kappa Alpha Psi, Inc.
Location: Marriot Wardam Park Hotel
2660 Woodley Road, NW

One of the most troubling pieces of evidence that Nickles needs to explain is the faulty police department radio recordings. And why his office submitted a blatantly false affidavit concerning those recordings? And after the affidavit was proven to be false, why city lawyers did not withdraw the affidavit or correct it?

One of the essential ways to review any disputed police activity is to listen to the dispatches over the various radio channels between the officers involved, the dispatcher, and the officers' superiors. These radio recordings provide a play-by-play of events in real time. On the morning of September 27, 2002, four hundred people were arrested in Pershing Park without probable cause, and without proper warning. Five years ago, Pershing Park plaintiffs' lawyers requested the radio runs hoping to document how those mass arrests could have happened.

The radio runs would not only provide crucial evidence that might help their case. But more importantly, the tapes would shed light on how such a mass arrest could have been made and how to prevent such arrests from happening again.

So far, the plaintiffs' lawyers have yet to receive the full D.C. Police Department radio recordings from that day.

Over time, the AG's lawyers have provided different sets of recordings. In each case, the recordings are missing the moments leading up to the mass arrests and the mass arrests themselves. The gaps show up on all the radio channels, on all the recordings provided.

Instead of investigating why there were these mysterious gaps, the AG's lawyers defended the recordings as proper. How did they do such a thing? They produced a sworn affidavit.

On November 16, 2007, Denise Alexander, a then-training instructor with D.C.'s Office of Unified Communications, submitted a sworn affidavit concerning the radio runs. In her statement [PDF] to the court, she claimed that she reviewed the tapes:

"On November 15, 2007, I was directed to review a number of audiotapes that were provided by Ronald Harris, Deputy General Counsel of MPD. These cassette tapes were labeled as being recordings of communications from various MPD radio zones on September 27, 2002, and at various times.

I, along with dispatchers Marcia King and Tammie Creamer listened to the tapes to ascertain whether there was anything out of the ordinary concerning the recordings, including gaps in transmissions, equipment and unaccounted for periods of time."

What was Alexander's conclusion? The tapes were fine. There were no gaps. She stated:

"I did not detect anything technically deficient with the recordings....There is nothing unusual or deficient about this transmission or recording. Marcia King and Tammie Creamer both indicated to me that they did not detect anything unusual about the recordings they were given to review."

Plaintiffs' attorneys were not satisfied with Alexander's conclusions. On December 12, 2007, they deposed D.C. Police Inspector James Crane and examined the tapes with him.

The attorneys asked Crane to respond to Alexander's sworn statements. The D.C. Police official stated in his deposition [PDF] that Alexander's affidavit was false:

"I believe that there is an issue that not all the recordings are present. The question is whether the copies were done incorrectly, and they can be further provided, or was the recording system, did they make a mistake. Yes, I think there are some issues with it. I don't have enough information to render a judgment as to if it was technically deficient or there was human error, but I do recognize there's an issue with the lack of recordings."

Plaintiffs attorney Carl Messineo then asked that the OAG attorney to withdraw Alexander's affidavit in light of Crane's testimony:

"I'm requesting that the District of Columbia withdraw from the record or strike from the record the erroneous or false representations that were submitted to the court in the declaration of Denise Alexander."

The OAG lawyer refused: "Note for the record that Ms. Alexander made the declaration under the penalty of perjury, and she's indicated that the foregoing is true and correct. And that's noted for the record."

Crane went on to state that shortly after the Pershing Park arrests, the District government directed that the radio runs be preserved. The directive was given by Ronald Harris, a deputy general counsel with the D.C. Police Department.  Crane stated in his deposition:

"I received a request from Ronald Harris to produce the audiotapes.... I thought I preserved them and I did not take any other steps other than producing them from Ronald Harris."

This afternoon, City Desk contacted Denise Alexander and asked her about her affidavit.

"I can't even remember that," Alexander said. She then referred calls to D.C. Police's general counsel's office. Alexander is no longer an instructor with the Office of Unified Communications. She now works in OUC's Quality Assurance branch.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

The D.C. Police Department has heralded its latest All Hands On Deck weekend with a press release. This AHOD took place between the early morning hours of July 10 to the early morning hours of July 12. The all gambit produced 519 arrests and one closed homicide case.

As all AHOD scholars know the bulk number doesn't quite tell the story of what the officers really achieve during these weekends. More detailed breakdowns show that much of the arrests are ultimately tossed out by the U.S. Attorney's Office. We posted the numbers of previous AHODs here and here and here.

The latest numbers provided by the U.S. Attorneys' Office show a similar stack of flimsy arrests.

Here are the stats from the July 10 to July 12 AHOD via prosecutors:

July 10 Cases:

Felonies: 7

Misdemeanors: 48

Fugitive: 4

No papered cases: 22

July 11 Cases:

Felonies:  21

Misdemeanors: 41

No Papered cases: 38

Fugitive: 3

July 13 Cases:

Felonies: 20

Misdemeanors: 74

No Papered cases: 40

Fugitive: 7

Total cases tossed out: 100

Total felony cases: 48

Photo By Darrow Montgomery

This weekend, Marion Barry engaged in some rather questionable behavior. The councilmember allegedly snuck into his ex-girlfriend's house and later found and/or followed her in his car and was arrested on stalking charges. He had also allegedly locked her out of his hotel room in Denver during the Democratic Convention and canceled her return flight to D.C. The two apparently weren't soul mates. All of this behavior is stunning considering that Barry really, really does not like being stalked.

Barry especially doesn't like being stalked by reporters. In fact, he has quite the history of using the police to prevent reporters from following him.

I reported on the former mayor's drug problems in 2006. During the reporting of that story, part of our job was to follow him around, see who he hung out with, and how he spent his time. After leaving a community event, we followed him in my crummy Corolla. Full disclosure: Our cop skills were really lame.

We didn't get very far before Barry pulled into a liquor store parking lot. Like dummies, we stopped too, even pulling in directly behind him. Barry got out of his car and promptly dialed 911.

Myself and another reporter sat in our car trying to figure out what to do. Barry had made it clear that he would not to talk to us; he was still holding true to his interview ban with City Paper reporters. We could only follow him and report what we saw. After a few moments, I decided to confront the councilmember.

"I'm calling the police," Barry mumbled as I walked up beside him.

"That's ironic---you calling the police," I replied. Full disclosure: I was pissed off at Barry for calling the cops. Seemed like such a dramatic waste of time.

Barry argued that what we were doing was harassment. I started asking him questions about his drug test, I believe. A member of his entourage stood nearby. He was dressed in sweatpants. And like Barry, he had his ear to a cellphone.

"I'm on the phone here," the Sweatpants Man said. He added that he could "get some boys to come over and take care of the situation." He then pointed to the nearby neighborhood. The man making those threats was the Rev. Anthony Motley.

"What are they going to do? Kill us?" I asked.

I thought the whole scene was getting silly. Motley was all bluff. We ended up bailing before the cops showed up. This encounter just wasn't necessary and added nothing to our reporting. The real reporting came from his council record and what his neighbors saw him do (i.e. buy drugs).

Reached today, Motley says he doesn't recall the incident.

On a subsequent night, two other reporters were tasked to follow Barry. They were parked outside Barry's girlfriend's apartment complex. At around 11 p.m., the councilmember drove away. The reporters attempted to follow him.

Barry pulled up alongside two D.C. police cruisers. They chatted for a while. The cops then blocked the street, and Barry drove away. The cops told the reporters that they had to wait a while. After five minutes, the police officers moved their cars and let the reporters pass.

In 2004, I was on another Barry story--this time chronicling his successful hobble toward winning the Ward 8 council seat. On the Sunday before the primary, Barry threatened us with police intervention if we didn't leave a public street near his apartment. We refused. The cops never showed up.

While Barry is always quick to claim that he is the victim of police harassment, he did not hesitate using rank-and-file cops to get what he wants. In our case, that meant not answering questions or not letting reporters see what he does with his late-night downtime.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

The third D.C. Police All Hands on Deck effort recently took place at the end of June. The D.C. Police have not released any numbers on overall arrests. But they did put out a handy press release promoting the program which puts all available D.C. cops on patrol. Chief Lanier (pictured) loves AHOD.

The latest AHOD went from June 26 to 6 a.m. on June 28.

The U.S. Attorney's Office provided their own stats for AHOD-related arrests. These do not include the minor stuff handled by the Office of Attorney General. The stats still show a significant number of no-papered cases i.e. cases tossed out by prosecutors due to a lack of evidence.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

On June 26 there were 11 felony cases, 30 misdemeanor cases, seven fugitive cases, and 20 no-papered cases.

On June 27, there were 30 felony cases made, 42 misdemeanor cases, and a whopping 50 no-papered cases.

On June 29, there were 20 felony cases, 64 misdemeanor cases, 29 no-papered cases, and eight fugitive cases.

Total felony cases: 61 cases

Total no-papered cases: 99 cases.

Effectiveness of AHOD: That's a question for all of us. You can check on the results from the previous AHODs here and here.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

At some point on Friday, Graham had heard from media sources that Black had been mentioned as a suspect. Graham tells City Desk that he tried to verify this with D.C. Police officials.

"I said 'hey is there any truth to this?' I was assured that there wasn't," Graham says. "He may have been somebody who's name was mentioned, but that was just all talk. Just all talk."

But Graham did confront Black. He called him into his office and questioned him about the shooting incident in which two adults were shot in the leg outside the Columbia Heights metro stop Thursday afternoon. In the shootings immediate aftermath, Graham had been on the scene talking to residents and police. That day Black attended the summer jobs program orientation at the convention center. Graham had told reporters about the incident at the convention center that involved police seizing the revolver and brass knuckles.

Graham says he asked Black about the shooting and whether he was involved. "I had previously asked him if he had done it," he says. "He had an alibi....I didn't know whether to believe him or not believe him. I felt that he knew more about it than what he was saying. He might have been on the scene."

Graham says that a staffer in his office had known Black since he was a child. Black, who has a young boy of his own, started intern work this past Monday---a week early. He worked Monday and Tuesday. On Wednesday, he was out. On Thursday, Black attended the orientation. He worked a full shift on Friday.

"I had various conversations with him," Graham says. "I thought he was very intelligent, thoughtful."

After yesterday's press conference on gang violence held in front of the Columbia Heights metro, Graham found out that Black had emerged as the main police suspect. Assistant Chief Alfred Durham called him to break the news.

"Was I upset yesterday that somebody left my office and shot two people? Yeah...That's pretty upsetting," Graham says.

Black had already left Graham's office for the day. Graham says he called the young intern's cellphone. He encouraged him to turn himself in. Black accepted Graham's offer to drive him to the Third District.

Black did not apologize. "He was obviously very upset," Graham says.

"The car ride was largely in silence," Graham says. "[Black] said he knew exactly what to do. The conversation was all about you are definitely doing the right thing. I tried to be sensitive. I don't remember any specific conversation."

Graham walked Black inside the Third District. Detectives were waiting. They padded down Black and then took him away. Graham was then interviewed by officers for a half hour.

"He's entitled to his day in court," Graham says of his former employee. "You can't talk as if he's been convicted. He hasn't been convicted. He's been charged with a crime. I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that when I spoke to him---I wasn't convinced that he was guilty."

Graham isn't sure if he wouldn't rehire Black. "I haven't thought of it yet," he says. "I'm still dealing with the other issues. I have to be ready to give people an opportunity. I've created 70 permanent jobs in DPW for returning ex-offendes and I have done so because people need second and third and sometimes many chances."

Graham continues: "What are we going to do? These people are going to be abandoned? I'm very very sorry that violence came out of my office...I think I did the right thing by going to get him. I think I did all the right things. We don't do background checks on summer interns even if we did the whole point of the program is to give people opportunities. I've hired gang members before....And we've had good experiences to tell you the truth."

At the end of May, Shadow Senator Paul Strauss suddenly decided to plead guilty to charges stemming from his drunk driving arrest. It was an interesting move considering that he had long fought the charges, even delaying his proceedings in D.C. Superior Court so he could hunt down an expert witness. The incident had proven to be quite an embarrassment for the city official---not just for the drinking-and-driving bust itself but for his conduct with the police (he showed off his senate ID; Third District cops were not impressed).

Strauss has not issued much in the way of a public apology for his conduct. There's been no teary press conference, no photo up with MADD. Other officials have at least gotten with the program and admitted their mistakes when caught over the legal limit (like this guy and this guy). He refused to return calls for comment at the time of his guilty plea. Nor had he offered much in the way of an explanation immediately following his arrest.

City Desk finally caught up with Strauss this afternoon. Strauss could not have been less interested in talking about his DUI guilty plea. Don't expect any Public Service Announcements from the Shadow Senator any time soon. This is a guy who wishes he could just blackout the whole incident.

When asked about how he felt about his guilty plea and his case being closed, Strauss replied: "We're putting it behind me and moving on."

City Desk: Was there any lesson learned?

Strauss: "That's really all....[rambling to the effect of a no comment]."

City Desk: What happened with the Expert Witness?

Strauss: “We just decided to put this behind me and move on. Thank you for your interest.”

The Shadow Senator then hung up.

After his guilty plea, we wrote:

Strauss received a 60-day suspended jail sentence, 11 months of supervised probation, a $300 fine, and $100 fine to be paid to the victims of violent crime compensation fund. As part of Strauss’ supervised probation, the shadow senator must “abstain from the use of hallucinatory or other drugs, and submit to drug testing….,” according to court documents.

]]> http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/17/paul-strauss-wants-to-move-past-drunk-driving-arrest/feed/ 7 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/16/one-veteran-cop-on-the-crime-bill-grandstanding/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/06/16/one-veteran-cop-on-the-crime-bill-grandstanding/#comments Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:11:23 +0000 Jason Cherkis http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=24464

Today, the various crime bills are being debated as I write this item. You can read the complete and competing bills here. The Post has gathered up the pro and con surrounding the controversial proposal to take gangs or gang members to civil court. The Post writes:

The provision -- drafted by the administration of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) -- would allow authorities to target alleged gang members in civil proceedings. A prosecutor could obtain an injunction barring an alleged gang member from engaging in a range of activities, including such nuisance offenses as harassing passersby on the street.

Loose Lips is liveblogging the big crime bill debate. This afternoon, I talked to a veteran D.C. Police official who has vast experience with drug and gang cases. I wanted to know their thoughts on the crime bills and the civil-court provisions.

They basically thought the crime bill(s) were a waste of time.

Here are their thoughts:

"We got plenty of laws in place. Drug laws and gun laws. But it's a rotating door down at the courthouse. The youth system sucks in the city. You look at the history of these criminals, come on.

You need laws that the courts are going to pay attention to. Go down and sit in arraignment court and copy down names of people that walk out the same day and run their records.

The problem is not the mayor or anyone else. It's the court system. It's the judges in the courts. Sometimes you got to keep a criminal behind bars. If you got someone who sells drugs to a police officer---he should be in jail. He should be locked up.

[We] experience this on a daily basis. Especially our street tasforces.

Why do we need new civil charges? For harrassing people on the street, cops could charge criminals with disorderly conduct."

Today, the D.C. Police Department announced the latest results of its All Hands On Deck effort which lasted from 6 a.m. on June 5 to 6 a.m. on June 7. For those unfamiliar with AHOD, the program just means that for a given weekend all available sworn officers are put on patrol. It's also one of Chief Cathy Lanier's big projects. This latest law enforcement ramp up netted 510 arrests. The arrests numbers are way up from the previous AHOD's 377 arrests.

But D.C. Police did not provide a breakdown of those arrests. They've just offered the bulk number.

Thankfully, the U.S. Attorney's Office just provided City Desk with a breakdown of cases filed---or not filed---during the June 5-June 7 time period. This does not include the various minor charges that would have been filed with the Office of Attorney General.

The numbers are up to your interpretation. Was this a good AHOD or a bad AHOD?

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

For June 5, there were eight felony cases, 36 misdemeanor cases, and four fugitive cases. Twenty-three cases were no papered meaning prosecutors declined to go forward with those cases.

For June 6, there were 13 felony cases, 54 misdemeanor cases, six fugitive cases and 32 cases that were no papered.

For June 8, there were 23 felony cases, 56 misdemeanor cases, six fugitive cases, and 30 cases that were no papered.

So this means that there were 85 citizens who got arrested, sat in a lockup or at the D.C. Jail, and waited through arraignment court on charges that were eventually thrown out.

The U.S. Park Police has one story. And a WJLA story with interviews from potential neighborhood witnesses has yet another version of events. Let's break it down.

In an interview with City Desk, U.S. Park Police Sgt. David Schlosser, the department's spokesperson, lays out this simple scenario.

"Yesterday detectives received information about about a man with a gun, located the subject," Schlosser says. "While they were making the arrest, a struggle ensued. The suspect was shot. The suspect did have a gun and the gun was recovered at the scene."

According to WJLA account, Trey Joyner never pointed a gun at the cops:

On Monday night, four U.S. Park Police officers moved in when an informant reportedly made a call about a man with a gun. The plainclothes officers are part of the multi-agency Safe Streets Task Force.

Trey Joyner apparently got of a car and then something occurred which prompted the officers to fire repeatedly. Witnesses say they heard at least seven gunshots.

Investigators say they recovered a gun at the scene, but some who say they witnessed the shooting are adamant Joyner never brandished a gun or threatened the officers.

"He never pointed the gun at him," said a witness.

The diverting narratives could simply be due to the fact that the case is still very, very fresh. One hopes the D.C. Police Department were able to do a thorough canvas and that residents came forward with whatever they saw. The D.C. Police Department is handling the case.

Schlosser says: "We are cooperating completely with them."

This afternoon, the Partnership for Civil Justice announced that it had filed a FOIA request today seeking answers concerning this shooting. [You can read a PDF of the FOIA].

In a release, the Partnership writes:

"In response to reports that a resident of the District was shot in the back and killed last night in the Trinidad neighborhood by undercover federal law enforcement agents, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) today demanding disclosure of the directives and policies authorizing and implementing the program through which the officers were operating.

Few D.C. residents are aware of the existence of this FBI-led undercover law enforcement operation through which plain-clothed Park Police officers opened fire in the midst of a D.C. neighborhood. The fact of this operation, shrouded in darkness, came to light in reports published today that the officers involved in the above-referenced incident were working as part of an MPD and federal “inter-agency task force dubbed Operation Safe Streets, which addresses violence throughout the region and is overseen by the FBI.” (See Debbi Wilgoren and Martin Weil, The Washington Post, June 9, 2009, online edition)

The FOIA request was submitted to the MPD, the Mayor’s Office, the FBI and the National Park Service’s Police."

U.S. Park Police were last involved in a shooting on April 13 of this year at 2nd and K Street NE. Schlosser says that investigation is still on-going.

*Correction: This reporter in a previous post was completely confused about this police shooting. He mixed up the earlier police shooting from yesterday morning with the Park Police shooting from last night. Item has been fixed. Embarrassment remains.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers---James Haskel and Anthony Clay---first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, part three here, part four here, part five here, and part six here. Our latest installment focuses on deposition witness: James Haskel's wife---Corsondra L. Haskel.

Mrs. Haskel is important. Why? Because immediately after the shooting, Clay drove Haskel's Tahoe back to her house. The first civilian he talked to was Corsondra L. Haskel.

Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer deposed her on April 9, 2009. Haskel seemed very concerned about why Clay had left her husband behind. She also contradicts Clay's testimony on a crucial point. Here is what she had to say about her interactions with Officer Clay:

Lattimer: What happened at that point when he brought the truck back?

Haskel: We talked.

Lattimer: We meaing---

Haskel: Officer Clay and I.

Lattimer: OK. What did you all talk about?

Haskel: We talked about---we talked about where he was or where my husband was.

Lattimer: All right. And what did you say and what did he say?

Haskel: He told me what happened.

Lattimer: What did he tell you?

Haskel: He told me what happened --- I don't remember what --- I don't remember his words as to what exactly he said.

Lattimer: OK. To the best of your recollection and as best as you remember, what did he tell you had happened?

Haskel: I don't remember.

Lattimer: You don't remember anything that he said?

Haskel: Can I take a break?

Lattimer: Well, there is a question pending right now. Once you answer the question, you can take a break....

Haskel: I asked him where was James, and he said that they saw the mini bike. And he told me about the fire exchange.

Lattimer: What did he say? Well, let me finish because you want to take a break. Let me let you finish your --- what you were saying before I started devling into questions.

Haskel: That's what he said...

(Haskel gets to take a break).

Lattimer: You say he told you about the fire?

Haskel: Uh-hu, there was an exchange of fire.

Lattimer: And what did you think he meant by that?

Haskel: What did I think?

Lattimer: Yes.

Haskel: Where was my husband if there was an exchange of fire?

Lattimer: Did he explaine to you how this gun -- this shooting had occurred?

Haskel: Did he explain to me?

Lattimer: Yes.

Haskel: Once they saw the bike, he said that they were shot at, and then there was gunfire. And I asked him, where is James? And he said around the corner. And I said, OK.

Lattimer: Did you say, is he all right?

Haskel: Yes, I said is he all right, and why did you leave him.

Lattimer: And what did he say when you asked if he was all right?

Haskel: He's fine.

Lattimer: And then you said why did you leave him, what did he say?

Haskel: He said---he said, he's OK. That's what he told me. He's OK.

Lattimer: Did he tell you why he left?

Haskel: No. He didn't tell me.

Lattimer: Did he tell you what happened to the young man on the bike?

Haskel: No.

Lattimer: So at that time what, if anything, did you do?

Haskel: I got on the phone and called my husband.

Lattimer: Did you reach him?

Haskel: No....And then I called him again.

Lattimer: Did you reach him that time?

Haskel: I spoke with him...

Lattimer: Did you ever tell Clay that a young man had been shot?

Haskel: No.*

*Why is this important? Clay claimed in his deposition that Mrs. Haskel told him about the boy being shot.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers---James Haskel and Anthony Clay---first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, part two here, part three here, and part four here. In this latest installment, we focus on Haskel's explanation of why he fled the scene. Immediately following his shooting of Rawlings in the back of the head, Haskel contends a hostile crowd formed.

Haskel's contention is not backed up by his fellow cops.

In his deposition with Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer, Sgt. Ralph Wax tries to make the case for Haskel. But after lengthy questioning, Wax must concede that the crowd may not have been hostile at all.

Wax: [Haskel] did not know the whereabouts of DeOnte Rawlings' firearm at that point. So there's a inherent danger when the subject is down, and he observes three people over top of him. There's an inherent danger, not knowing where that weapon is, knowing that there is a firearm in that immediate area. Yes, I think he could reasonably conclude that there is a danger.

Lattimer: So if he had immediately gone to DeOnte Rawlings and secured him, there wouldn't have been three people over him, would there?

Wax: I can't answer that.

Lattimer then reads back what Wax wrote in his investigative report.

Lattimer: Second, the shooting prompted an immediate and negative response from the community, whose ire was directed towards Officer Haskel, based on what Haskel told you.

Wax: I think that, coupled with all the officers' statements in this instance.

Lattimer: None of the other officers were attacked.

Wax: The officers talked about the hostility in the area. They weren't the ones identified as the shooter who just shot somebody, but they all were talking about the hostility when they got there.

Lattimer: What hostility? What did they say? Go to somebody who talked about hostility?

Wax: OK. Based upon 6(e), I can't talk about what officers said. There is other statements from Officers Egbert, Cilla, and Bank.

Lattimer: In your initial report, you talk about Officer Bank, and you don't talk about any hostility that he talks about.

Wax: I didn't cite it....He said there was a hostile crowd there that night.

Lattimer: OK. I'm looking at it. Once on the scene, Officer Banks, he observed a juvenile lying on the ground bleeding from the head. Officer Banks said that he and Officer Egbert were joined by Officer Cilla, and the three of them secured the scene and attempted to keep the crowd under control....

Wax: If you have to keep the crowd under control, there's a reason to control the crowd.

They go on to talk about what the crowd was saying. They were talking about how the police had shot Rawlings. They knew Haskel was a cop. Lattimer goes through the statements from the cops on the scene and then finally returns to the hostility question.

Lattimer: But none of that talks about hostility?

Wax: I can't talk about hostility. I guess I shouldn't have referenced that.

Lattimer: What is the reason?

Wax: I spoke out of turn....

Lattimer: Nobody was throwing anything, right, that you know of?

Wax: I have no evidence that anybody threw anything at anybody.

Lattimer: Nobody was threatening anybody, that you know of, right? At least not from these three guys, what they say, right?

Wax: I can't answer that fully. I know Haskel felt threatened, he stated, by an individual who beckoned him towards the scene.

Let's stop right here. The evidence Haskel has to back up his hostility claim is that a citizen standing by Rawlings waved him over. That's it. Haskel doesn't describe the citizen as angry. The citizen just waved him over. He thought that was unusual. Really? A 14-year-old is shot in the head. Maybe it's possible that the citizen wanted Haskel's help. There's no evidence that this citizen's motives or actions were hostile.

It was just a wave.

Lattimer: We're talking about the three officers, is what I'm asking you about. None of them indicated that---

Wax: The context of those interviews, no one said anybody was threatening them in those statements that I just read from.

Lattimer: And when they got there, they got there within moments, seconds of teh shooting, right?

Wax: Couple minutes after the shooting, approximately two minutes.

Lattimer: And Clay doesn't talk about any hostility, right?

Wax: That's correct.

Lattimer: So of the five people that I understand now from you that the first five people, MPD-related people, who were on that scene after the shooting, were Haskel, Clay, Egbert, Bank, and Cilla, right?

Wax: Right.

Lattimer: Of those five people, only Haskel told you on the 18th or 17th that there was crowd hostility?

Wax: That would be a correct statement.

With much fanfare, the facility replaced the infamous Oak Hill juvenile detention facility. Officials had trumpeted its very un-jail like citing; local media had repeatedly compared it to a college campus. "This is the anti-prison," Vincent N. Schiraldi, director of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, told the Post in a story that made it seem like New Beginnings was a St. Albans branch campus only better . "What we had before was a training school for them to become adult inmates. We want them to aspire to college, to be in a place that looks like you care about them."

The press had noted that New Beginnings was not surrounded by razor wire. Instead, officials stated that the facility's security was pure state-of-the-art Gattaca shit---"climb-free fencing" and "detention-grade windows." New Beginnings central campus-like feature was a sweet courtyard; it also had a cafeteria, library, gym, and automated bathroom time (!). Apparently, none of the new features nor the intimidating climb-free fencing could prevent a kid from bolting the $46 million Laurel campus.

The kid is still out there. An internal investigation is underway to determine how the kid escaped. Meanwhile, the Post provides some hilarious details on the city's security tests:

"On Thursday, Schiraldi and David Muhammad, chief of Committed Services, said they had brought in young men to try to scale the New Beginnings fences and made modifications to prevent escapes. Schiraldi even said he planned to put prickly shrubbery, possibly rose bushes, near the fence so the young men would not be tempted to flee."

One councilmember is already feeling prickly over the escape---Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells.

Wells is annoyed that he was not notified by the Fenty Administration about the escape. He is chairman of the Human Services Committee which oversees New Beginnings. Wells promised to hold a hearing on the issue and go all question-y on city officials. This would be something new for Wells considering he also oversees the Child and Family Services Agency which got slapped pretty good by the court monitor recently.

On his Tommy Blog, a Wells staffer gushed over New Beginnings' opening as a historic milestone.

Maybe you are sick of hearing about the DeOnte Rawlings case. The 14-year-old was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer on September 17, 2007. That's a long time ago. By now, the off-duty cops have been cleared by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the D.C. Police Department. Law enforcement contends that Rawlings had fired on the officers---James Haskel and Anthony Clay---first and was riding Haskel's stolen minibike. Officer Haskel only returned fire in self defense.

In this series, City Desk has set out to chronicle the case's oddities and various headscratchers. You can read part one here, and part two here. Now comes this curious detail from Sgt. Ralph Wax.

On September 4, 2008, the D.C. Police Department cleared Haskel and Clay of wrongdoing in connection with the shooting death of Rawlings. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that she was happy to have the officers back. But in the Post story linked above, it was reported that Clay had been reprimanded for an undisclosed infraction. Sgt. Wax's deposition sheds some light on what that might have been. In his deposition, he stated that he cited both officers. And the citation was not for some small infraction.

Wax headed up the investigation into the Rawlings shooting. On the night of September 17, he interviewed both Haskel and Clay. Generally, he was the one responsible for the Rawlings case. In his deposition, Wax stated that he cited both officers for fleeing the scene---a major reason why this case has drawn so much outrage.

Both officers admitted in their own testimony that their actions---like leaving Rawlings behind and failing to safeguard evidence, etc.---bucked police procedure.

It is unclear whether Wax's write-ups were ever approved by the department's top brass or whether the officers were punished in some way. When asked about the possible reprimands, Assistant Chief Peter Newsham, who ran the Internal Affairs division and is familiar with the case, refused to comment.

"Memo to everyone: DC is not a safe place. That home that sold at 14th and Fairmont for $499,999 was not a good deal. In all of these recent shootings, and Oh, I forgot about the murder outside the Mt. Vernon Square metro--the police have been close enough to hear the shots and respond immediately. Still no arrests in any of these homicides. I'm not about to criticize the officers on the scene, but clearly there is a failing at some level of administration here. Obviously. You don't need someone who rarely updates a blog to tell you that.

My speculation is that things are only going to get worse as summer drags on, with the economy still in the pisser, and gang rivalry flaring up. You can tell me that violent crime is down and all of that (and maybe it is), but we'll see how those statistics work out once it's August. I've lived here long enough (in the grand scheme of things, not very long) to know that we haven't done anything magical to put a lid on crime in DC."

In case you don't trust bloggers who rarely update their blogs, how about the latest crime news from Borderstan. Crime is all the blog appears to be reporting on lately. And while we're hating on ourselves, 14th & You would like cleaner streets like they have in London.

New Columbia Heights notes that the Circulator bus is now on youtube. I prefer DCRA on twitter.

The New Teacher On The Block scolds one of their aides for letting one of her students wander off: "Seriously, people, DCPS does not ask much of you...but if you could not lose my students, that would be excellent. And I know kiddos are prone to wander sometimes, but the fact that you didn't even notice one of your kids was gone is awful. Especially because [if] something had happened to him, it would certainly have come back on me."

Congress Heights on the Rise makes more great points about a bad ANC.

Our own Black Plastic Bag breaks big news on the upcoming Sonic Circuits 2009 lineup. And Young & Hungry breaks the news on Spike's eviction from his Cap Hill rental.