When news broke yesterday that a D.C. Police Detective had come forward to dispute former Chief Charles Ramsey's assertion that he did not order the arrests in Pershing Park in 2002, I immediately thought of Kathy Patterson.

Few fought harder to get at the truth of what led to Pershing Park than the former D.C. councilmember. Seven years later, Det. Paul Hustler comes forward to say out loud what a lot of people knew: Ramsey was directly responsible for Pershing Park. What did Patterson think?

Patterson responded to Hustler's affidavit with an e-mail. "I'd like to see the District settle," she wrote. "I'd like to have some assurance of lessons learned."

Read More "Pershing Park Case: Patterson Hopes District Has Learned Its Lesson" »

Plaintiffs lawyers in the second Pershing Park case have filed their response to AG Peter Nickles' sworn statement submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on August 12.

Nickles' statement in which he was ordered to explain numerous discovery problems including a missing police document and faulty radio dispatches has come under heavy fire from Councilmember Mary Cheh, Councilmember Phil Mendelson, and former Councilmember Kathy Patterson. Last week, plaintiffs lawyers in the other Pershing Park case submitted their own critical take on Nickles' testimony. They have called for an independent investigation into the missing evidence.

Now comes the plaintiffs lawyers in the Barham class-action case. They too believe Nickles fell well short of an honest explanation of the case's numerous OAG-related problems. In its 32-page rebuttal, they focus particularly on Nickles' claim that he is only now just learning about the missing and/or tampered police evidence.

In fact, they argue Nickles was quite familiar with the Pershing Park case since Jan. 2007. You can read the entirety of their statement [PDF].

Read More "Pershing Park Case: Nickles Could Have Addressed Missing Evidence Long Ago" »

Last week, former-Councilmember Kathy Patterson submitted a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. The letter called into question several statements made by AG Peter Nickles in his sworn submission to Sullivan regarding the Pershing Park case. Councilmembers Phil Mendelson and Mary Cheh have their own critiques. But it was Patterson who sent her letter to the federal judge. The judge then issued an August 20 order releasing it to the various lawyers in the case---but not to the public.

Soon, the letter made its way to the press. Nickles does not approve of this leak. He may have a point. But it seems a little petty in light of the AG's promises of a full investigation into the case's numerous evidence problems. Also, Patterson corrects several errors that she believes were made in Nickles' sworn statement. Is this really the moment Nickles should go back to playing the bulldog lawyer?

Nickles suggests he wanted time to oppose the public release of Patterson's letter. In a filing yesterday, Nickles raises the issue with Sullivan:

"Since Ms. Patterson is not a party to this case, the purpose of the Court's August, Order was to make Ms.Patterson's correspondence available to all parties and also to inform the parties of the Court's inclination to post the correspondence on the public docket and to provide the parties with an opportunity to respond publicly. The Court's Order, however also provided that any objections to the posting of the Patterson Correspondence on the public docket be filed by no later than August 26 and that the Patterson Correspondence would not be made a matter of public record until the Court so ruled."

Read More "Pershing Park Case: Nickles Plans To Respond To Patterson’s Letter" »

Late last week, I got an anonymous letter gently complaining about our coverage of the Pershing Park mess. A few times a week, we've posted critical pieces concerning the sloppy work of the OAG or pointed to discrepancies among D.C. Police personnel over how basic documents could either disappear (the running resume) or be tampered with (the radio dispatches containing gaps). The writer wanted to know why the plaintiffs in the case didn't just settle.

The facts are really not in dispute--the mass arrests were bad, violated due process, etc. Other Pershing Park plaintiffs have settled.

I can't begin to guess why the plaintiffs in this case have not settled. But one thing that appears driving the plaintiffs is the simple quest of getting to the truth of what happened on September 27, 2002.

Why is this important? Because immediately following those bad arrests, D.C. Police officials lied and manipulated information about that day.

Read More "Why Does The Pershing Park Case Matter?" »

On August 12, AG Peter Nickles submitted his sworn statement to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. By now, the statement has been read by several Pershing Park experts. Their verdict: Nickles' statement needs a re-write! Councilmember Phil Mendelson and Former Councilmember Kathy Patterson caught several possible errors.

Mendelson took issue with Nickles' claims that the D.C. Council had prevented him from instituting reforms at OAG and had cut OAG's budget. Patterson found fault with Nickles' assertion that his attorneys had been blocked from getting materials discovered in the council's Pershing Park investigation. Patterson says the majority of those materials were made available to the public along with her detailed  final report.

Today, City Desk reached Councilmember Mary Cheh. Cheh had helped lead the D.C. Council's investigation into the mass arrests at Pershing Park.

Her take on Nickles' statement: "This is an attempt to exonerate himself from any liability," she says. "From what I can tell, he has misled the court....This is just an erroneous, unreliable self-serving statement on his part."

Read More "Pershing Park Case: Cheh Joins Others In Slamming Nickles’ Statement" »

Today, At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson joined former Councilmember Kathy Patterson in fact-checking AG Peter Nickles' increasingly faulty sworn statement regarding the troubled Pershing Park case.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan had ordered the city's attorney general to submit a sworn statement explaining the evidentiary problems in a Pershing Park case. Nickles and OAG attorney Tom Koger submitted their statements on August 12 [read their statements in full].

This week, Patterson sent a letter to Sullivan outlining the various factual problems she had with Nickles' statement. Now comes Mendelson writing to Nickles. Mendo points out several mistakes in Nickles' statement to Sullivan.

All of the errors are both obvious and unnecessary. The take away:  Does Nickles really care about the Pershing Park case? Should he be the one leading an investigation into the missing and botched police evidence?

Mendelson tells City Desk that he is undecided on whether to open an investigation. But he says there will be oversight hearings on the controversy.

"What troubles me besides the hot water the city is in with Judge Sullivan, what troubles me is we repeatedly have these problems with getting accurate information," Mendelson says, citing the DeOnte Rawlings shooting case and the Fire Truck dustup.

Mendelson says the council will be looking into the missing evidence in the Pershing Park case.
Read More "Pershing Park Case: Mendelson Cites More False Statements From Nickles" »

Today, former Ward 3 Councilmember Kathy Patterson submitted a letter [PDF] to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan regarding the troubled Pershing Park Case.

Patterson, who headed up the council judiciary committee at the time of the mass arrests and spearheaded an exhaustive investigation into the incident, may be the best authority on the subject (not including plaintiffs' attorneys).  It appears she wrote the letter to refute several assertions made by Attorney General Peter Nickles in his sworn statement turned into Sullivan on August 12.

Read More "Kathy Patterson Fact-Checks Peter Nickles on Pershing Park" »

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan slammed the District's lawyers for how it has severely mishandled evidence in a civil case brought by plantiffs who were arrested in Pershing Park in September 2002.

Sullivan focused particularly on AG Peter Nickles. The Post writes:

"Sullivan ordered D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles to submit a sworn declaration detailing his office's shoddy work and the steps he was taking to fix the problems.

Sullivan said he would impose 'severe' monetary sanctions on the D.C. government and urged Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) to 'settle this case soon.' 'This kind of conduct is not acceptable,' Sullivan said, calling the actions of D.C. government lawyers 'abysmal' and urging the D.C. Council to investigate the attorney general's office.'"

You can read Sullivan's full statement to the court here. So what provoked the judge's anger?

Read More "Pershing Park Case: Now It’s All About The Cover Up; Nickles Faces Huge Test In U.S. District Court" »