What it saw: Pomegranate juice maker POM Wonderful may not be so wonderful—a federal agency was investigating the company. The paper happened upon this fact when its reporter was innocently perusing documents regarding unpaid legal bills the company owed a D.C. firm. The investigation was revealed in the court docket. So NLJ planned on mentioning the investigation to its readers, but then things got complicated.

The documents NLJ saw were meant to be sealed, and now a judge says the paper can only reveal that an investigation was conducted; it can't say what agency did the investigating. NLJ editor David Brown says the documents were made available publicly due to a clerical error, and that barring his paper from writing about the investigation is a violation of the First Amendment.

"The court is trying to rectify a clerical error by creating a constitutional error,"  he tells City Desk.

NLJ ran the legal fees story, along with a note in which Brown sounded  off about the judge's interference:

What appears here is not the full story. Minutes before our deadline Friday, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff signed a temporary restraining order against The National Law Journal enjoining it from publishing certain details that we legally obtained from court documents. Specifically, we are not allowed to name a government agency conducting a regulatory inquiry into one of the subjects of the article, POM Wonderful. We fought this order vigorously in court; we thought and continue to think that it is a violation of the First Amendment, and we are working on an appeal. Bartnoff, as she considered the order, said, "If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it." She said the court's interest in maintaining the "integrity" of its docket trumped the First Amendment concern. We strongly believe Bartnoff's action harms the integrity of the court by placing process concerns over fundamental constitutional rights. Sadly, however, because of Bartnoff's order, we were forced to scrub this article of any reference to the agency. We apologize to our readers for being unable to provide the fullest report possible. — David L. Brown, editor in chief

Brown says the paper will appeal the judge's decision. "We intend to fight," he says.

The account of the victim's ordeal is nothing short of tragic, and also leaves one to wonder if the system currently in place for dealing with domestic abuse didn't break down.

The victim sought help from authorities in May 2009, acquiring a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) that Escalante quickly violated, court papers show. And even after she decided to move into a domestic violence shelter, the victim wasn't safe. Instead, she was sexually assaulted right there on the premises.

Court documents provide a picture of the first time Escalante abused his then girlfriend, and it's graphic. Documents say the victim and Escalante had just moved in together in September 2008 when things began to go horribly wrong. During that month, the victim went off to Boston to check out a job prospect. When she returned, Escalante allegedly beat her up and accused her of going to Boston to prostitute herself.

After the beating, Escalante wanted sex. Dragging the victim into the bedroom by her hair, he demanded she take off her clothes. When the victim refused, Escalante allegedly tore off the apparel and forced her. "This is what women are useful for," Escalante stated, according to court papers.

Escalante's physical and sexual assaults would continue to intensify.

During a sexual assault at Rock Creek Park on the morning of Dec. 12, 2008, for instance, Escalante not only threatened the victim's life, but began shearing her hair off.

"Once arriving at the park, the defendant showed the complainant two knives and told the complainant that he was going to use one to kill her and one to kill himself. The defendant then proceeded to cut the complainant’s hair and stated that she better be quiet or it was not just her hair he was going to cut."

After multiple other instances of abuse, on May 7, 2009, a TPO was served on Escalante on behalf of the victim. Such an order is issued by a judge and requires an abuser stay away for a fourteen day period, giving the victim time to get a more permanent protection order. Escalante violated the TPO on May 19. Police were called but it's not clear whether Escalante was arrested. Christel Nichols of House of Ruth, an organization that often works with domestic violence victims in the District, says that in her experience, TPO's tend to be ineffective as far as protecting abuse victims goes. Cops, she says, have wide latitude when it comes to whether or not they're going to do anything about the violation, and sometimes do nothing at all.

Even after the victim moved into a domestic violence shelter, she wasn't safe. Documents say Escalante came to the place –located in the Northwest quadrant of the city– and walked right through the front door, which was open. According to documents,  finding the victim in her room, he bit her lip and sexually assaulted her while holding a pillow over her face.

The next day, the victim reported the abuse to a friend and police showed up at the shelter and arrested Escalante.

Nichols, whose organization has multiple domestic violence shelters around the city, but did not house Escalante's victim, says that among other security protocols at House of Ruth facilities, doors are kept locked and visitors have to get past shelter staff in order to enter.  "There's  no way someone could just walk in," she says. But though House of Ruth shelters tend to be vigilant about safety, the approach of other shelters to that issue vary. Nichols says the city imposes no standards regarding what a domestic violence shelter must do to keep its clients secure.

"One 500 magnum, silver Smith and Wesson revolver":

"One .50-caliber Gold-Plated semi-automatic Desert Eagle with magazine":

"One .45 caliber, black semi-automatic Kimber Eclipse with magazine":

"One 9 millimeter Browning with magazine (and extended magazine)":

ALSO: Gilbert Arenas’ Cover-Up Text Messages, Prosecutors: Arenas Should Be Put Behind Bars

500 Indiana Avenue NW, March 3

For all of you folks getting hitched
Your tents, are they already pitched?
Room 4-4-8-5
Will soon come alive
When laws in the District are switched

"Beginning at 8:30 a.m., the first 200 couples will receive a box including Hello Cupcake’s signature chocolate and vanilla flavors, offering congratulations and best wishes.  Catania will personally greet couples and hand out cupcakes between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m."

What will Catholic Charities being handing out?

Earlier today, the D.C. Court of Appeals declined to stay the impending legalization of same-sex marriages in Washington.

In a terse opinion [PDF] today, the appeals court refused to overturn a Superior Court judge's decision not to postpone the District's same-sex marriage from going into effect. Which means, barring some unlikely congressional intervention, come next Wednesday, March 3, gay couples can start lining up at the courthouse. (Pursuant to District law, they''ll have to wait three business days to actually do the deed, so no weddings till Tuesday.)

Over at the Sexist, Amanda Hess has everything you need to know about tying the knot, starting with your trip to the H. Carl Moultrie I District of Columbia Courthouse. You'll need to bring $35 and avoid Fred Phelps & Co.

UPDATE, 5:15 P.M.: Download your new, gender-neutral marriage license application form [PDF] if you want (via GLAA Forum).

Photo via nerdcoregirl, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Apparently, Maria Louis isn't Maria Louis. Her legal name is Maria Lewis. But, you see, sometimes it's not. Sometimes, she uses Louis. Like on Facebook or among close friends. Like some not-very-imaginative nickname.

Yesterday, news broke that Maria Lewis had been charged with assaulting a police officer with a snow ball. Her roommate had given me her name as "Maria Louis." Her friends had dedicated a Facebook page to her legal case. They too referred to their pal as "Maria Louis."

Today, Maria Lewis pleaded not guilty to the APO charge.

Apologies for any bad vibes or hurt feelings our error may have caused.

Today, she was arraigned on one misdemeanor APO count. After her arraignment, she was released. She had been held for nearly 36 hours. Her next court date is in early March. [UPDATE, 5 P.M.: Her name is Maria Lewis, not Louis.]

"I expect her to be fully exonerated," says her defense attorney Janai Reed.

"Pearson wants the appeals court to take notice of a photograph showing [Judge] Huvelle [who dismissed his lawsuit now on appeal] standing with several Superior Court judges, including Anita Josey-Herring, who is a defendant in Pearson’s suit. Pearson included the photo—taken in May at the annual Law Day Dinner Program hosted by the Washington Bar Association—in his opening brief, filed Jan. 21 in the appeals court."

In Pants Lawsuit Guy's view, this photo incriminates both judges. BLT translates his latest filing this way:

"Judge Huvelle’s enthusiastic participation in this smiling, arm-in-arm ‘sisterhood’ photo with defendant Josey-Herring” took place before Huvelle ruled on pending motions in the suit. Pearson said in court papers that Huvelle should have recused from hearing the suit."

As you may recall, Arenas and Crittenton will be forever linked as really awesome guys to have in a locker room.

Crittenton apparently has pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge. Legal Times' blog has a full breakdown of the plea and Crittenton's lawyer's statement.

5 p.m. update: After Crittenton entered his plea, Senior Judge Bruce Beaudin sentenced him to one-year unsupervised probation, and required him to perform community service with the NBA's Haiti project as well as some local children's organizations.

The big news: Crittenton's claims that he believed Arenas intended to harm him.

After the jump: Prosecutors' narrative of events and counter WaPo's now-famous account of the incident in one significant way—Crittenton's gun was not loaded during the locker room incident!

The U.S. Attorney's Office press release provides a narrative regarding pre-Christmas fight between Crittenton and Arenas. On December 21, Crittenton arrived at the Verizon Center at 9 a.m. to receive medical treatment and to attend the Wizards' practice. The prosecutor's office writes:

"According to Crittenton, before he left his home in Virginia for practice that day, Crittenton had placed a lawfully owned, unloaded handgun into his backpack because he believed Arenas would carry out his threat to shoot him that day."

When Crittenton found Arenas' handguns in his locker and a sign that read "pick 1," he asked Arenas: "What is this?" and asked Arenas to get the guns off his chair. He then picked up one of the guns and threw it along the floor. The prosecutor's office goes on to state:

"According to Crittenton, he feared for his own safety, so he told Arenas he had his own gun. Crittenton took his handgun out of his backpack and, without pointing it anyone, showed it to Arenas, holding it below his waist pointed downward."

Prosecutors point out that there is no evidence that Crittenton's gun was loaded or that he ever loaded the gun. "There also is no evidence that Crittenton ever chambered a round, pulled back the hammer, raised or pointed the firearm, or otherwise brandished the firearm in a threatening manner at any time during this incident," the U.S. Attorney's Office writes.

This directly contradicts WaPo's Mike Wise's amazing story on the incident in which sources told him that Crittenton had chambered a round.

Later, Crittenton arranged to surrender his firearm used in the incident. His gun of choice: An unloaded silver-and-black nine millimeter semi-automatic Taurus with magazine. Crittenton had no criminal record.

On Tuesday, news broke that the D.C. Jail renewed one of its most steady pastimes: screwing up an inmate's release. Throughout the jail's recent history, Department of Corrections officials had made a habit of either releasing inmates too early or holding inmates well beyond their release dates. In the case of Tira Williams, jail officials released her despite a judge's order to keep her in jail.

Williams had been in jail after she was busted on Dec. 1 for shoplifting at a Safeway, assaulting the security guard and police officer as well as resisting arrest. On Dec. 8, a judge ordered her released pending trial. On Jan. 11,  a different judge revoked her probation in a separate case from 2008,  and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.

Williams was also ordered detained in the Safeway case. That order came down on the afternoon of Jan. 15 following a status hearing, court records show.

The upshot: Two different judges in two different cases had ordered her to be held at the D.C. Jail at the time that corrections officials released her.

After the press hit on this story, the DOC continued to follow tradition which dictates that some official must blame D.C. Superior Court for the screw up.

In this case, an anonymous city official released a statement erroneously blaming the court to FOX5:

"After receiving notice from the D.C. Superior Court to release an individual, the DOC did so, only to subsequently be informed by the court that they had made an error, and accordingly, the DOC is in the process of bringing the individual back into custody."

D.C. Superior Court Spokesperson Leah Gurowitz tells City Desk that after reviewing the court docket, there's no record of any release order being issued in the Williams matter on Jan. 15. In fact, Williams' file contains the judge's commitment order. And she had been sentenced to 10 days in jail on January 11.

In her own statement, Gurowitz writes:

“No notice was ever given to the Jail to release Ms. Williams on January 15^th, nor did anyone at the Court ever communicate to the Department of Corrections (DoC) that an error had been made."

When the issue came up several years ago, D.C. Superior Court gave corrections officials work space in the courthouse along with 24-hour access to its databases. In addition, court personnel is on hand until 10 p.m. to answer any questions that come up. Also, no defendant is supposed to leave the courtroom without an order nor or are they supposed to get on the jail's bus without an order.

Corrections officials released Williams at 11:41 p.m. on January 15–another violation of city protocol. Inmates can not be released after 10 p.m.

“Earlier this afternoon, Gilbert Arenas appeared before the Honorable Robert E. Morin of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and pled guilty to a charge of carrying a pistol in the District of Columbia without a license.  He accepted full responsibility for his actions, acknowledged that those actions were wrong and against the law, and has apologized to all who have been affected by his conduct.  Mr. Arenas appreciates the professionalism of the authorities handling this matter.”

If anyone has learned anything from this week it's that you shouldn't lie about guns. Dante "Little Head" Vaughn has learned that lesson the hard way—with a jury conviction.

Yesterday, a D.C. Superior Court jury found Little Head, 29, guilty of obstruction of justice for repeatedly lying about a shooting incident in April 2008.

Little Head was shot once in the leg during a drive-by-shooting at the corner of Lincoln Road and Randolph Place NE. The shooting was right under a D.C. Police camera. When questioned by police in a nearby hospital that night, Little Head lied about the location of the shooting. He also, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office, encouraged his fiance to lie to the cops. A month later, police came back to re-interview Little Head. He did not use that second chance wisely. Instead he stuck to his lies.

Little Head's shooting, the U.S. Attorney's Office says in a press release, was a pivotal event, one that "touched off a round of retaliation shootings." Those shootings resulted in two deaths and more than 15 wounded.

Little Head faces 15 to 27 years in prison.

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Today, Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff denied a request from the Washington Teachers' Union to reinstate the fired employees, including 266 WTU members, pending the outcome of a lawsuit.

The employees were laid off by DCPS as part of a "reduction in force" necessitated by budget pressures; WTU claimed that the budget pressures were a ruse that were forced by DCPS overhiring teachers earlier in the year.

Bartnoff found the union's argument lacking on several fronts.

For one: The current teachers contract, she found, "provides no basis for any challenge to the merits of a [reduction in force], the procedures used in conducting a RIF, or the validity of a RIF as applied to any particular employee."

Bartnoff writes that she "recognizes that questions could be raised about particular RIF decisions, in terms of the position that was eliminated, the individual whose employment was terminated, or both." But bad individual firing decisions "do not establish that the RIF was a pretext for a mass discharge." Individual employees who were wronged are free to take their case to the city's Office of Employee Appeals.

Bartnoff, examining the merits of the WTU's case, handed the union what amounts to a legal death blow, "finding that the plaintiff has shown virtually no likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that the RIF was not really a RIF and instead should be considered a mass discharge."

"At most, the plaintiff showed that a large number of teachers were hired in the spring and summer of 2009, which DCPS does not dispute," Bartnoff writes. "But the plaintiff presented no evidence to refute the evidence presented by DCPS that its budget included those new teachers at the time they were hired, as well as the returning teachers, that DCPS was planning for the new school year based on the budget that was passed in early June and its budget agreement with the Council Chairman, and that the RIF was instituted in response to the $21 million budget reduction enacted by the City Council on July 31."