Ronnie Jones, one of the 229 teachers laid off in last September's "reduction in force," filed suit in D.C. Superior Court on Feb. 18 claiming defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—all this due to Rhee's quote about removing "teachers who hit children, who had sex with children, who had missed 78 days of school."

Rhee's comments, the lawsuit claims, were "in furtherance of her plan to discredit the D.C. Public School teachers who were fired under the pretext of a RIF....At the time defendant Rhee made the statement alleged above, she knew it to be false and without merit." Furthermore, co-defendant Mayor Adrian M. Fenty "instead of disavowing and correcting the erroneous statement of defendant Rhee, all but ratified her comments and reiterated that she was doing a great job and was in fact the premier superintendent in the country."

For the record: "At no time did plaintiff ever engage in any of the inappropriate conduct alleged and the defendants know that to be the case."

Jones claims he "continues to suffer from severe and irreparable injury in his profession and community standing" and has "suffered permanent damage to his reputation as a law-abiding citizen of high moral character."

His attorney is Gregory Lattimer, no stranger to the Office of the Attorney General. You might remember him from his bulldog pursuit of the DeOnté Rawlings case.

Jones is seeking some $30 million in relief—$15 million each in compensatory and punitive damages. Getting any kind of judgment will be a tall order, however—proving that Rhee knew her comments were "false and without merit" when she was spoke them will be a tough sell, to say the least. Especially when records show that, while Rhee's utterance wasn't precise, it reflected more than a grain of truth.

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, and part three here. In this installment, we present a curious incident that took place shortly after the Rawlings shooting.

According to the D.C. Police's preliminary investigative report, the shooting drew a very high-profile crowd to the scene at Highland Dwellings: Mayor Adrian Fenty, Chief Cathy Lanier, Asst. Chief Willie Dandridge, 7D Command Joel Maupin, Commander Alfred Durham, Special Operations Division Commander Patrick Burke, Acting Asst. Chief in the Office of Professional Responsibility Matthew Klein, Capt. Melvin Gresham, and various watch commanders and Force Investigation detectives.

One person on the scene actually found a red minibike–Det. K. Goldberg. By the time he arrived, Rawlings had been transported to Children's Hospital and the scene had been secured, the report states. Goldberg states that he began canvassing the neighborhood for evidence.

Goldberg walked into a courtyard surrounded by 638 and 650 Atlantic Street SE. He goes on to state in the report:

"[There] was a group of people that appeared to [be] juveniles in front of and along side 650 Atlantic St. SE. DC. This group was made up of boys and girls. I noticed a group of four or five young males that had a red framed mini bike on a cement porch that appeared to be in front of 650 Atlantic St. SE. DC. They were crouched down around the mini bike as if [they] were trying to fix some part of it. There were other young people standing two to three feet away from the ones with the mini bike."

Goldberg doesn't know anything about the importance of a red minibike. But he approaches the group anyway.

Goldberg goes on to state:

"I spoke to a young black female that was sitting on a metal rail that was approximately 10 feet away from the boys with the mini bike. The unidentified female stated that she was 12 years old, she did not see anything and she lived in 638. As I awas walking back toward the crime scene to continue the canvass, I turned around and saw two young males pushing the mini bike and leaving from in front of 650 Atlantic ST. SE. DC."

Goldberg then joins up with the other officers at the crime scene. Some time later, he overhears something about a red minibike being stolen. And that the bike was a motorized bike. The detective then meets with a member of the Force Investigation Team–a Det. Baum–and told him that he had seen a red minibike. Baum and Goldberg then went back to the area and knocked on the door to 638 Atlantic.

"An unidentified young male opened the front door and stood at the door," Goldberg writes. "I recognized this young male from being one of the people that was standing about two or three feet away from the mini bike in front of 650 Atlantic ST. SE. DC. I asked the young male if he knew about a mini bike. He answered negatively. I told him I saw him standing near the mini bike. The young male did not say anything and closed the door."

Goldberg states that he and Det. Baum walked back to the crime scene. This was the extent of their canvassing.

Rawlings' family attorney Gregory Lattimer says he has seen no warrants issued for 650 or 638 Atlantic Street SE.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

On Sunday, the Washington Post dropped a huge A1 investigative look at the DeOnte Rawlings shooting written by Cheryl Thompson. The Rawlings case has rightly consumed the paper. Two off-duty cops–James Haskel and Anthony Clay–went looking for a stolen minibike that resulted in the shooting death of 14-year-old Rawlings. In the immediate aftermath of that fatal September day in 2007, transparency and accountability were promised by city officials. They have yet to fulfill those promises.

The Post devoted more than 3,700 words to yesterday's Rawlings story. And before that piece, the paper had produced more than two dozen stories on the Rawlings saga, noting every twist and turn in the case—from the autopsy findings to a feature on the neighborhood where Rawlings was shot and everything in between. Their stories aren't just sourced by angry family members either. Their stories appear sourced by well-meaning cops as well. [It's not just the family who wants the answers out there, it might just be the rank and file, too].

What made yesterday's story such a stunner was how little news was in there. It was a testament to the stubbornness of police officials–Chief Cathy Lanier, in particular–who continue to refuse to release their investigative documents and findings.

The article's author, Thompson, rarely gets in print. She had to have been on the Rawlings story for at least a year. And yet, I can't seem to find one revelation or new detail that sheds new light on either the shooter (Officer Haskel) or Rawlings.

If you want a good summation of those 3700 words, read the Post's Dec. 1, 2008 editorial pleading for the city to cough up answers on the shooting. It is the best thing written so far about the case. [Haskel's prior shootings, the bullet hole on the SUV, etc. are in that editorial]. If you thought that eyewitness sounded familiar, he was. The Post wrote about him and his alleged claims on October 19, 2007.

After all those words from the Post, there are still too many questions left unanswered. Here are a few:

1) Haskel had been involved in two other shootings while he was off duty. What exactly was his involvement and what were the circumstances of those shootings? Those shootings had been ruled justified–why were they ruled justified?

2) Immediately after the shootings, police brass spoke highly of Haskel and Clay. Why did they fail to mention that he had been involved in those other shootings?

3) Not mentioned in the the Post story was the fact that Chief Lanier had promised Councilmember Phil Mendelson a copy of the police's investigation into the Rawlings shooting. She made this promise under oath roughly a month ago at a council hearing. She has yet to turn over the Rawlings report. Why?

4) Were Haskel and Clay reprimanded for their failure to follow police procedure? The officers admitted to not securing the crime scene, to fleeing the crime scene, and to failing to announce themselves as police officers when they allegedly found Rawlings and the stolen minibike.

5) Who was DeOnte Rawlings? We know he was a 14-year-old kid who was slipping into trouble. What was his family history? We know he sought the counsel of a social worker. We know that the family had been troubled prior to the shooting. Not in the Post story: Did CFSA have a case file on Rawlings' family?

6) What was Rawlings doing the day before the shooting? Hours before the shooting? Minutes before the officers pulled up? If Rawlings did have a .38, what attempts have the police made to find the gun and find the person who gave him the gun?

7) Rawlings did not have any gunshot residue on his arms and hands following the incident. What medical attention did he receive on the scene and at the hospital? Is it possible that the residue would have been  wiped off? If not, then how do the police explain this?

8) Aside from the ShotSpotter and the two cops, what evidence does law enforcement have that corroborates the police version of events?

9) Alleged eyewitness Clifton Coleman claims he was there and saw Rawlings fire a .38. Did the Post attempt to interview him and if so why did they not include his statements? If he refused to comment, why did he refuse to comment? If he was deposed, why not quote his deposition? Rawlings family attorney Gregory L. Lattimer claimed he has questioned Coleman.

10) Lanier claims that she can't talk about the case because of grand jury secrecy rules. The officers were cleared. Why not share the case file now?

11) Haskel said in his recorded statement that he fired two shots and the kid with the minibike ran off. Why didn't he then call for back up?

12) What is the physical evidence that backs up their claim of a running gun battle–that Rawlings continued to fire his weapon as he was running. Let's face it: A 14-year-old kid running and firing a gun backwards is scary but isn't the safest place behind the SUV? Rawlings allegedly fired his gun nine feet away from the officers' SUV and missed. He then took off running–how far away was he when he fired off more rounds? Twenty feet? More? Less?  Clay claims that he snuck behind the SUV. Why didn't Haskel? Why did he give chase and put himself in danger?

13) Investigators found no gunshot residue on Rawlings shirt. How do investigators explains this?

14) Rawlings body was found roughly 100 feet from the original confrontation. That is a long distance. How did Haskel explain that he feared for his life?

15) The Post reported that two residents called 911. What did they see? What efforts did the Post make to find these residents?

16) The Post reported that three people gathered around Rawlings. Who are these people? What did they see? Did they see a gun next to Rawlings? Did any of them admit to taking the gun?

17) The scene around Rawlings did not appear dangerous. Why did the police say that the scene appeared hostile and that's why the officers fled?

18) Is there anybody who went to police or the family's attorney and claimed they saw Rawlings running without that .38?

19) And finally, is there anything meaningful the police can say about why this case seems so messed up?