In late July, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan called for an investigation into the discovery abuses in the Pershing Park case. Sullivan suggested that the D.C. Council should get to the bottom of how evidence went missing or got botched.

Councilmember Mary Cheh called for AG Peter Nickles to resign. Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who heads the Judiciary Committee, stated that he "definitely" would be considering an investigation into the matter.

Now, a D.C. Council investigation appears unlikely.

Mendelson tells City Desk that he hasn't ruled out holding hearings on the mass arrests and troubling OAG response. But considering Nickles' relationship to the council, he says it might be a waste of time.

"The difficulty with holding a hearing is Nickles may not show," Mendelson says. "He might even claim privilege....I'm not sure what I could get out of a hearing."

Mendelson counters that the bulk of any investigation into the disappearing evidence is already coming from the plaintiffs attorneys. He's just not sure what more he could discover from holding a public hearing on the case. "I just don't know how we could have an effective hearing given Nickles' obstructionism," he explains.

Mendo says he's still trying to get police documents related to the DeOnte Rawlings case. Pershing Park could be another never ending document chase.

Still, Mendo assures: "Pershing Park is not off my radar screen in terms of Nickles' bad behavior. I'm not sure how I'm going to follow up on it....In some way, and I don't know how right now, all that's going to come back to haunt him."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

And this from Nickles: "I think Mary Cheh is great....Mary Cheh is a great councilmember."

Leave it to NBC-4 (or if you prefer WRC-TV), operators of the worst local news site, to slap a story with some real news value with a sexist headline. The station follows the Nickles-Cheh story with a piece headlined: "D.C. Catfight!"

First Nickles referred to Cheh as an angry woman. Now, a local news channel throws up another sexist cliche. Wendy Rieger needs to start a protest. Wait, is she still working there?

The story's first graph is just as lame (typo included):

"D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles readlly did it this time.  He's uncovering the hellish fury of a scorned woman, after his comments last week about D.C. council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3)."

All of this sweet prose  is just a way to give us the news that Councilmember Kwame Brown has called on Nickles to apologize:

"Councilmember Cheh deserves an immediate apology from Peter Nickles for calling her an ‘angry woman’ and saying her comments were ‘stupid.’ This is just another example of how the Attorney General has stepped over the line and stooped to the lowest levels. Councilmember Cheh is a respected lawyer and professor whose opinion about the law I have the utmost respect. She is fulfilling her responsibility to ensure the integrity of government."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

I know the fight between AG Peter Nickles and Councilmember Mary Cheh is getting a lot of play on City Desk. LL noted it. And our Weekend in Reviewer picked it up as well. I think it needs a third look. WaPo wrote on Sunday:

“It’s almost becoming a lawless administration,” said council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3). “They seem to have no limits or restraint on what they are willing to do.”

Attorney General Peter Nickles, who often speaks on behalf of the administration, said Cheh “has no idea what she’s talking about.” “For her to make comments like that, it’s stupid,” he said. “She’s an angry woman.”

What struck me was Nickles' blatant sexism (which DCist picked up on). Nickles' comment that "she's an angry woman" feels like he's channeling Mad Men. It's made all the more ironic considering that Nickles had played the race and gender card over the very topic he and Cheh are fighting about: Ximena Hartsock.

I don't care if Cheh is an accomplished lawyer/professor/councilmember. Nickles fights are getting increasingly personaly with Cheh. It's not doing him any favors.

Nickles owes Cheh an apology. He's a tough lawyer. He should be able to come up with a better retort than the tired "angry woman" cliche.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

The Issue

Don't Build Them: Residents of more than two dozen properties on the street signed and submitted a no-sidewalks petition to the D.C. Department of Transportation last month. Some people maintained the sidewalks were unnecessary because no one really walks there; plus, they'd ruin front yards. "People are opposed to the whole idea of sidewalks," Gordon Kit told the Dupont Current last month. "I don't think there's any one primary reason why people are against them....They just don't have any real purpose."

Build Them: Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh has been pro-sidewalk. She says it's city policy to install sidewalks in the course of any street reconstruction; it's a matter of public safety. Plus, some residents say people actually do walk on University Terrace, including children, en route to Key Elementary.

Next Step: The project was supposed to have begun by now, sidewalks and all, but John Lisle, a DDOT spokesman, confirms that the work has been postponed---yes, at least in part because there "wasn't a clear consensus." The city will continue to "study the issues" surrounding the reconstruction and will get more input from the community, he said. Look for more meetings.

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].

Plaintiffs lawyers quote from Nickles' statement where he writes: "I have had only two weeks since the status conference to undertake the investigation."

The plaintiffs' lawyers' response:

"Mr. Nickles implies that he did not know of the intractable and prominent discovery abuses in this case prior to the July 29, 2009 hearing date ('Immediately after the status hearing on July 29, 2009, having then been informed of the Court's concerns and recently produced documents...'). However, Mr. Nickles never states under oath that he had no knowledge of the plaintiffs' discovery concerns or filings on the subject. He does not explain why no investigation was initiated despite plaintiffs having raised these significant issues of document loss, destruction and withholding over and over again years ago, including to the attorney that he has now appointed to take charge of the case, Ellen Efros. As further discussed below, Ms. Efros has long been involved in this matter and directly apprised of the discovery abuses.

Mr. Nickles' claim of surprise and/or lack of opportunity is neither credible nor viable at this late date. These have been prominent issues in a prominent case."

Plaintiffs then quote from Sullivan at the July 29 hearing: "All these discovery shortcomings have been appropriately documented in previously filed motions by Plaintiffs, so it comes as no surprise. None of this is any surprise to the City."

Plaintiffs argue that Nickles had at least half a year from their filing for sanctions to investigate the evidence problems. They write: "Notwithstanding his claims of surprise and protestations of a lack of opportunity to educate himself and investigate the discovery violations, Peter J. Nickles has been personally involved in this litigation since his very first week in his official position as General Counsel to Mayor Fenty, way back in January, 2007."

Plaintiffs lawyers then go on to provide a bit of news concerning Nickles' involvement in the Pershing Park mess. They state that on January 8, 2007, Nickles "personally met" with mediators in the case:

"One would presume that in order to represent the District's (or the Mayor's) interest in settlement, Mr. Nickles became quite familiar with the case and the major issues that could impact its advance and defense and inform settlement posture."

Plaintiffs lawyers also state that Nickles met with the appointed mediator during a second session in 2008. They write:

"It is a matter of record that at that time, discovery had closed, the destruction of the J.O.C.C. running resume had been established, missing periods of time of the recorded police channel communications had been established and acknowledged by the District in the deposition of Inspector James Crane, the materially inaccurate Declaration of Denise Alexander had been submitted to this Court, the former Director of the Office of Internal Affairs Stanley Wigenton had admitted in deposition that that Office has a practice and unwritten policy of not investigating allegations of police misconduct if a victim files a lawsuit...the withholding by the OAG of the field arrest forms had been established, and the OAG certainly was aware of its belated production of nearly 3,000 documents on the last day of discovery and the next day after. The plaintiffs had advised the Court that a major motion for sanctions against the District was forthcoming, and a briefing schedule had been set and then suspended when the case was stayed for mediation. No doubt, Mr. Nickles informed himself of all relevant issues in order to properly represent the defendants' interests in settlement."

We will be posting more on the plaintiffs rebuttal later today and tomorrow. There's more news concerning the alleged OAG resource problems and the missing evidence.

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."

Nickles suggests he really wanted to raise objections to Patterson's letter before it made its way to the press:

"Defendants fully appreciate the Court's effort to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to give the parties a chance to object to the public disclosure of non-party, unsoliticed comments before making them a matter of public record. It appears, however, that events beyond the control of the parties hereto have overtaken this judicial process. Almost simultaneously with the Court's receipt of the Patterson Correspondence, it was released to the press and has been widely circulated by the media. Thus, that portion of the Court's Order concerning the filing of objections to the public posting of the Patterson Correspondence now essentially is moot, and accordingly, any concerns or objections that a party may have lodged with the Court as to such public disclosure would be to no avail."

Nickles states that he intends to respond to Patterson's critique "by no later than September 4, 2009."

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."

Cheh also found fault with Nickles' claim that the OAG was denied access to the council's Pershing Park materials (page 10 of his statement). She also took issue with Nickles' claims that the council had received the running resume---a major piece of evidence in the case that has gone missing. The council did not get a copy of the running resume despite requesting one from the D.C. Police Department.

And Cheh backs up Mendelson's complaint that Nickles shouldn't blame the council for OAG's file mismanagement. "To lay things back on the council is actually laughable," she says. "There was money in the OCTO budget for document management. Nickles and the executive office never came forward with a plan, never sought that money to reform their office. This is a guy who can't run his own office. It's a mess... and he ought to own up to it."

Nickles' statement did nothing to shake Cheh from her recent statement calling for the attorney general to go. "The man should resign," she says.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

In our running poll of the D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee members regarding AG Peter Nickles' conduct, we finally reached Councilmember Yvette Alexander.

Nickles has come under fire recently for his office's conduct in a Pershing Park civil suit. District evidence has either been destroyed or lost and discovery continues to be a problem in that case. The discovery process has dragged on for years. The U.S. District Court judge in the case slammed the OAG, ordered Nickles to submit a sworn statement explaining his office's actions, and called on the D.C. Council to investigate the OAG's handling of the case. The issues before Nickles include one very false affidavit.

So far Councilmember Mary Cheh has called for Nickles to resign. Yesterday, Councilmember Phil Mendelson joined Cheh in pushing for Nickles to rejoin the private sector.  Councilmember Jack Evans still fully supports Nickles.

Alexander says she is reserving judgment on Nickles for the time being. She would like to see the council take up the matter. "I wouldn't have a problem with requesting an investigation," she tells City Desk. "You are innocent until proven guilty. I would want to know what happened with the evidence."

If there was purposeful or criminal mishandling of evidence, Alexander says, then Nickles should be ousted.

Alexander says that Nickles still hasn't accepted his role as the attorney general. "I have not seen the distinction in his role as the general counsel and attorney general," she explains. "It troubles me. That was one of my concerns during the confirmation."

*photo courtesy of Alexander's awesome website.

Evans also thinks the U.S. District Court judge's strong recommendation that the D.C. Council should investigate the OAG is misplaced. "I would think that the more appropriate agency would be the inspector general," Evans tells City Desk. "Certainly, someone would have to determine if there was wrongdoing. That's not the city council's job that's the inspector general's job."

Evans is sure that Nickles did not commit any of the alleged wrongdoing. For one thing, Nickles was not in office during the bulk of the Pershing Park case's activity. That fishy affidavit? Well, that's come up under his watch.

Should Nickles resign? "Oh God no," Evans says. "I think Peter Nickles does a great job for the District. This is the first time we got an attorney general that actually defends the city."

Colbert King recently wrote a column on the racial paranoia bubbling up on Cleveland Park's listserv. He followed up our own blog post on the subject. Whether residents there are racist or not we can not say. Those stories only prove that people still live in Cleveland Park. There are always the holdouts.

Video and more, below the jump!

With all the bad news surrounding Cleveland Park, we were a bit scared to visit its Connecticut Ave. strip. Had it succumbed to a sort of lawlessness? Were people freaking out over their 'hood losing its Slurpee machine? Would there even be anyone around to talk to? Had its residents started migrating to the hipper Van Ness, a neighborhood that can actually support a Starbucks?

One thing we did prove: You can still get a parking ticket in Cleveland Park.

On Wednesday, a federal judge weighed in on the Office of the Attorney General's conduct in a Pershing Park civil suit. Plaintiffs attorneys alleged that critical pieces of evidence had been destroyed, doctored and lost as a result of the AG's incompetence or worse.  Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's ruling was clear: he called the evidence problems "abuse" and wondered if residents could even trust the District government.

“It raises serious questions about when, if ever, can anyone trust their government," Sullivan stated.

Sullivan promised that the sanctions he would impose would be painful. He has ordered AG Peter Nickles to submit a sworn statement explaining how the evidence could have gotten lost and turned up severely doctored. The judge also called on the D.C. Council to get involved.

Today, Councilmember Mary Cheh tells City Desk that Nickles should resign.

“I think he should resign," Cheh says. "I don’t think he should have ever been appointed...You start messing with a federal judge in a case where you are hiding evidence or destroying evidence---that’s gone to a new level.”

Cheh would like to see the council investigate the Office of the Attorney General's conduct in this case.

"I had a conversation with [Councilmember Phil Mendelson]  after the judge had his encounter with the AG’s office," Cheh says. " I do believe he is also interested in it. How it will proceed, what we will do I’m not sure. This is a really shocking breach of faith…It’s lawless. I can’t get my jaw up from the ground it’s dropped so far."

When reached for comment, Mendelson says he is "definitely" looking into opening up an investigation.

"The D.C. Attorney General is supposed to be protecting this city not increasing our liability," Mendelson says.

Nickles failed to return phone calls seeking comment.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

The dispute is rooted in last Thursday's 'open deposition' of Peaceoholics co-founder Ronald Moten---an unorthodox proceeding, to be sure. As a deposition, Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Phil Mendelson requested that the television recording not be aired on Channel 13.

Long story short, the proceeding has been aired repeatedly since. That led the D.C. Council today to take up emergency legislation saying that it has exclusive control over the content of Channel 13.

In brief comments prior to the vote, both Cheh and Mendelson said that the executive branch had exerted influence on the Office of Cable Television, and its director, Eric Richardson. Mendelson, in fact, said that Richardson "was specifically directed by the highest member of the executive branch to run this tape and run it again."

"We are a separate branch of government," Cheh said. "We must maintain our own integrity."

The measure was approved by acclamation.

Afterward, Attorney General Peter Nickles handed LL a memo he'd written outlining objections to the council bill. "I am concerned that this new legislation (and its resulting affects) will hurt the cable-related interests of the District and its residents, rather than...advance these important interests." Further, he points out that the law "would enable the Council to censor or withhold critical information from the public" and "will likely result is less-open access to Council hearings."

In an interview, Nickles said the legislation is "very troublesome in terms of the latitude it gives the council and what it portends."

"They can conduct investigations pursuant to their own rules, but they ought not use cable TV," he says. "I don't think the executive or the council should be able to use public airwaves and control what goes on those public airwaves."

Nickles' argument to LL is essentially that the council can do what it want regarding investigations, as long as it doesn't involve cable TV. Asked if the council had requested OCT to not record the testimony ahead of time, Nickles says that "would be improper."

It's an odd argument, seeing as the council, until recently, held hearings and meetings in rooms without video recording equipment---and considering that the dissemination and control of information is an integral part of conducting investigations. In any case, the effects may be overstated, seeing as this is the first time in over 20 years of government-run public access television that a separation-of-powers argument has arisen, at least to anyone's memory. (That, of course, is a fact that cuts both ways: Why do you need legislation for just one incident? Or why not clarify an informal relationship that's worked well until now?)

But Nickles may have a point here, considering the council's fumbling attempt to rebottle the Moten genie: "I think if the council or executive wants to have a secret process, there are lots of ways to do it," he says. "Particularly, you don't do it after the fact."

Nickles says his next step is to look at the District's cable contracts, to see if the council action interferes with any provisions therein.

The fishy fire truck testimony delivered last Thursday by Peaceoholics co-founder Ronald Moten before the D.C. Council was plenty dramatic, but the drama apparently did not end with the pound of the gavel.

Since then, a classic council-executive scuffle has broken out over broadcasts of the proceeding on city cable, with allegations flying that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty himself has become personally involved.

Because Thursday's proceeding was considered a "public deposition" rather than a council hearing (it was supposed to be behind closed doors until Moten demanded otherwise), the councilmembers heading up the fire truck investigation---Mary Cheh and Phil Mendelson---determined that its contents should not be disseminated. That's in keeping with the usual council practice on depositions, which are kept under wraps, so other witnesses won't change their testimony to make their stories consistent (Never mind that LL and other reporters already did plenty of disseminating.)

On Thursday, Cheh tells LL, the order went out to the Office of Cable Television, and its director, Eric Richardson, not to air the Moten footage. In spite of this, the deposition was aired at 7 p.m. that night, leading Cheh to send her chief of staff, David Zvenyach, and D.C. Council general counsel Brian Flowers down to OCT headquarters to retrieve the tape.

They got a tape, Cheh says---but apparently, it wasn't the only tape. At 7 p.m. Friday, the deposition was aired again.

"Apparently it was a ruse," Cheh says of the tape handover.

Meanwhile, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray had called Richardson to further impress on him that the council did not want the proceeding aired.

Here's what Cheh says took place, according to various conversations with OCT last week: "We were told that the mayor had called and said that the tape should be shown at 7 p.m. this evening....We learned by a circuitous route...that Mr. Richardson was told that he was to air it and that not only that, if he gets any inquiries from the council, or the chairman, that he's supposed to direct them to the attorney general's office."

Why Fenty would insist on the broadcast of a proceeding implicating two top deputies and a controversial friend in a questionable giveaway of city property is completely beyond LL and other observers. But, in any case, the move has rekindled the council-mayor wars, and has raised real questions about how the separation of powers extends to the District's cable TV system. The system is run by OCT, a executive branch agency, but longstanding practice holds that Channel 16 belongs to the mayor and that Channel 13 belongs to the council.

The mayoral power move "bespeaks a view of the executive that he controls what of our hearings and our meetings goes up," Cheh says. "He's making a claim here that I think is beyond executive authority."

Today, Gray informed his colleagues that he'll be moving emergency legislation tomorrow that would ensure that Channel 13 "shall be under the exclusive control of the Council."

From a memo issued by Gray: "The failure to follow the direction of the Council in whether to broadcast or rebroadcast a deposition in an investigation constitutes a serious imposition on the authority to control Channel 13 and on the oversight and investigation function of the Council and would, therefore, be a serious intrusion on separation of powers. Executive branch control of the Council’s cable channel programming in this and other instances threatens the independence and autonomy of the Council to deliver it’s message to the public without the filter of the Executive branch."

LL is waiting for calls back from Fenty's office, Richardson, Gray, and Attorney General Peter Nickles. More to come.

UPDATE, 2:30 P.M.: Richardson called back, directing inquiries to Nickles.

UPDATE, 2:50 P.M.: Gray, in an interview, confirms he called Richardson on Thursday night, and that Richardson had indicated that he had been "directed to play" the tape. But Gray says that by conversation's end, he "thought we had an agreement" to keep the proceeding off air. He hasn't had any communications with Richardson or anyone else from the executive since.

Says Gray of the mayoral interference into Channel 13 affairs: "I've never seen anything like this before....It really is controlling information in a very unhealthy way."

UPDATE, 3:30 P.M.: BTW, watch it while you can [WMV video].

UPDATE, 8:10 P.M.: Nickles speaks! "I don't know on what basis after a public session, you can direct someone to keep it off the air," he says. "It is so absurd."

Nickles says he's not aware of Fenty directly ordering Richardson to play the recording.

As for the larger separation-of-powers issues: "It's an executive agency; it's staffed by members of the executive branch."

The council action gave Nickles, not exactly Mr. Transparency, a chance to lecture councilmembers on the subject: "Here's all this talk of transparency, and here, out of the blue, comes this legislation...to give the council the right to effectively seal its proceedings form the public," he says. "I don't understand why you would even suggest that."

As for the legislation Gray plans to introduce, Nickles says, that might raise an issue with contracts the District has signed with its cable providers. Any council action would be prohibited from affecting the terms of those agreements.

"I think this is sort of the problem with this fire truck---that they're looking for this needle in a haystack, and they're not really being consistent or abiding by the law," Nickles says. "This is the latest unusual move."

Nickles, of course, in his own investigation, did not prove himself the most apt haystack-comber---he missed two big needles, named Sinclair Skinner and David Jannarone.

The D.C. Council saw one of the livelier proceedings in recent memory this morning, when Peaceoholics co-founder Ronald Moten appeared before councilmembers Mary Cheh and Phil Mendelson in connection with their investigation into the donation of used city emergency equipment to the Dominican Republic.

The proceeding wasn't hearing, exactly, but an open deposition. Moten had originally been scheduled to give his deposition behind closed doors on Friday, but he declined to testify, citing the council's political motivations. Council staff agreed to let him say his piece in public today, in what Mendelson called a "very unusual" proceeding.

Moten set the tone early, with a combative opening statement decrying a "political smear campaign" targeting his organization. He accused councilmembers and media of "attacking the mayor at my organization's expense" and engaging in a "political charade" that has affected his business and his family. "We hold the council directly responsible for creating an atmosphere where such stories could flourish," he said of media accounts questioning his organization's role in the shadowy transfer. The questions will remain, he says, until the "thirst for political blood is quenched."

Cheh and Mendelson reacted not at all to Moten's grandstanding. Once their questioning began, some vital facts quickly emerged: It became clear that Peaceoholics, far from being at the center of the giveaway, was something of a bit player. Moten, in his testimony, made it clear that this was a production of David Jannarone, the mayoral director of development, and Sinclair Skinner, an longtime Fenty crony now a businessman and consultant.

It was they, Skinner in particular, who first approached Moten about the donating the fire truck, earlier this year. And it was a company associated with Skinner---Liberty Industries LLC---who provided the funds to transport the fire truck and ambulance down to the Caribbean. Moten described Jannarone an acquaintance, while he said he'd known Skinner "for years" through their activist work.

"We agreed that I would join them on a good deed," he said.

Moten said he'd never been to Sosua, the town that was to get the equipment. He'd only been to the Dominican Republic in 1989, as a teenager, and he confirmed that he doesn't currently hold a passport.

Then Cheh tried to get Moten to describe his relationship with the District government, in particular the nature of his contracts. That set Moten off again: 'Cheh...what you're trying to do is tear down my organization," he cried. "What I think you're doing is criminal."

Moten went on to describe brief contacts regarding procedural matters with Robin Booth, an official in the Office of Contracting and Procurement, and Ronald Gill, a deputy fire chief. (Both were deposed Friday.) Moten went on to describe how the shipping on the ambulance and fire truck---an $11,000 proposition---was paid for. He received a check, drawn on Liberty Industries, from Skinner; Peaceoholics turned around and used those funds to pay a shipping company.

Then Cheh turned to the aftermath, in particular Attorney General Peter Nickles' (non-)investigation which declared the whole enterprise legal and proper without mentioning the involvement of prime movers Jannarone and Skinner. When Cheh started asking Moten about that investigation, he took the opportunity to embark on more speechifying: 'The whole thing was to make the mayor look bad; that's how the whole thing was set up," he said. "You were on TV 20 times talking about the situation, making it bigger than it is....I know everybody's running [for office] and they have to do what they have to do."

That speech won him cheers from about 40 allies in the audience, before Cheh admonished them to be quiet.

Moten continued protesting his alleged victimization: "You all let that happen!" he told Cheh. "You and Phil let that happen!" (As an aside, he referred to Cheh as "Cheh" for most of the hearing.)

Then Cheh turned to the subject of William Walker III, the man who birthed the idea of donating a fire truck to Sosua. Moten gave an account of his involvement that matches the account given by Walker himself, as printed in LL's column this week---that he randomly encountered Walker outside an Anacostia restaurant in March, and let slip that he was donating equipment to the DR. That flabbergasted Walker, who had earlier tried to consummate such a deal.

Moten said that he and Walker talked after that about getting Walker's organization, and kids he mentored, into the deal---in what would culminate in a big trip down to Sosua with all the interested parties. (Walker was scheduled to testify on the matter in a hearing today, but begged off due to sickness.)

Then the shit hit the fan. The story turned up in the paper, Nickles ordered the firetrucks turned around, and the whole thing has turned into a mess.

Then, an hour into the deposition, Mendelson started his questioning, and that's when things got especially combative. Moten, under the advice of his attorney, Rodney Mitchell, refused to answer questions that had been previously been asked. "You're acting like you're a prosecutor, I'm a criminal," he said at one point. "We're not gonna answer the same questions over and over again." He used that excuse repeatedly over the course of the next 45 minutes, under questioning from Mendelson and Cheh's chief of staff. Repeatedly Moten tried to invoke his constitutional right against criminal self-incrimination: "Fifth! Fifth!" he'd shout, despite his protestations about not being involved in criminal activity. (At one point, Cheh said after the hearing, she heard Mitchell instructing Moten to say he "didn't recall" answers to certain questions.)

At another point, Moten referred to a "political assassination at my expense" and told Mendelson, as he tried to confirm a timeline, "Right now my mind is not listening to you...because you're asking the same question....I think I deserve more respect than that, Phil."

But for the most part, the questions got answered.

And the picture those answers paint looks a lot like the one painted by Walker: That this production was hijacked from Walker by Skinner and Jannarone, and that those two used Moten and Peaceoholics simply as a nonprofit pass-through to comply with city surplussing regulations. If Moten was indeed a "pawn," as Walker describes him, nothing in Moten's testimony today disputes that characterization.

As to why Skinner and Jannarone would pursue such a giveaway, answers will have to come from them. After the hearing, Cheh says she expects to issue subpoenas for their testimony shortly.

Like Walker, Moten says he still wants to donate that equipment: "In hindsight, if we would have had to do it all over again, we would have slowed it down and had a press conference."