On Sept. 27, 2002, the Metropolitan Police Department rounded up hundreds of citizens inside Pershing Park. They then arrested them and detained them. For those hours and hours in police custody, these citzens were hogtied. And as soon as the last person was released—the city dropped all charges against everyone in this case—everyone knew that the class-action cases were soon to follow.

The Pershing Park case was an embarrassment for the city which had once prided itself on hosting protests without resorting to heavy-handed tactics. Chief Charles Ramsey's reputation took a big hit. [Chief Cathy Lanier was also involved].  The cases could have been settled a long time ago. Except that....the city lost key evidence in the case and a then-Attorney General Peter Nickles decided to play stall ball.  The case became endless. Here's a handy rundown.

Some of the cases have settled. The city has given out millions and millions. The settlement amounts related to Pershing Park and another protest case have been historic. One case is still pending.

But now comes the real punch in the face. WaPo's Del Quentin Wilber is reporting that the District has paid out more than $2 million in attorney's fees for the lawyers representing the police officials behind Pershing Park. That's quite a defense fund!

Wilber writes:

"The tally came in a filing late Thursday in the District's federal court by lawyers representing four bystanders who were among those swept up and arrested in Pershing Park during demonstrations against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. 'The District continues to seek to drive up costs and prolong litigation in this case,' lawyers Daniel C. Schwartz and Jonathan Turley wrote in court papers, adding the city has 'spared no expense' in defending former Chief Charles H. Ramsey and Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham."

To give you a sense of the amazing gravy train this case has become, a recent court filing shows that ex-Chief Ramsey's lawyer, Mark H. Tuohey III, wants $80,628 in attorney fees for work done from Sept. 1 through Dec. 31, 2010.

In the filing, the District's lawyers justified the fee's amount this way: "During the four-month period for which fees are requested by this Motion, counsel prepared and responded to pleadings, participated in various aspects of pretrial discovery and trial preparation, and, in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General, counsel participated in many telephone conferences."

Trial preparation? Really? Phone calls?

The District has approved the money. The District Court judge in the case just has to sign off the funds.

*file photo of Ramsey by Darrow Montgomery.

Last week, it was announced that former Metropolitan Police Department Chief Charles Ramsey will be inducted into the inaugural class of George Mason University's Evidence-Based Policing Hall of Fame. George Mason's version of a policing Cooperstown hailed the former chief with a lengthy bio, concluding on its website:

"A nationally recognized innovator, educator and practitioner of community policing, Commissioner Ramsey is known to refocus police departments on crime fighting and crime prevention through a more accountable organizational structure, new equipment and technology, an enhanced strategy of community policing and, since September 11, 2001, new approaches to homeland security and counter-terrorism."

Unfortunately, Ramsey is also known for mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002 that had nothing to do with accountable organizational structures and enhancing strategies for community policing. Just as his induction was announced, a magistrate judge in U.S. District was setting up the possibility that Ramsey just might go down in history as the Mark McGuire McGwire of police chiefs. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola announced that he plans to personally question Ramsey—and many other police and OAG officials—in the court's long-running probe into missing and doctored evidence in the Pershing Park case.

At a status hearing yesterday in his second-floor courtroom, Judge Facciola outlined three possible penalties Ramsey and the others could face: perjury, obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence. In his order outlining the inquiry, Judge Facciola writes that Ramsey and Co. should "be advised of their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves."

Ramsey is definitely not in the clear.

At the conclusion of Facciola's inquest, the entire matter could end up being investigated anew by the Feds. Ramsey has already come under considerable scrutiny for his deposition testimony in which he swore he did not order the mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002; several police officials testified that they heard Ramsey give such an order. But the thrust of Facciola's inquiry will focus on the missing or doctored evidence which includes police radio recordings that go blank during the period in which the mass arrests took place, missing video evidence of police activities, and the missing running resume—the official log of all police activities that day. Other bits of a messy discovery process could enter into the investigation.

Walking into Facciola's courtroom yesterday, Ramsey's attorney Mark Tuohey expressed total confidence that his client is no slugger who suddenly came up short under oath like McGuire McGwire. "He has nothing to worry about," Tuohey said. "But he will comply with whatever the court wants."

The magistrate judge wants: Definitive answers as to how so much critical evidence could go missing in such a high profile case. The cases is already deep into extra innings.  The judge is embarking on an investigation that has stymied veteran judges and talented plaintiffs attorneys. The Partnership for Civil Justice, plaintiffs attorneys in one of the Pershing Park cases, first discovered the evidence abuses years ago. Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan went ballistic last summer over their findings. By the end of the year, Retired Judge Stanley Sporkin issued his own report on Pershing Park in which he could not exonerate any police official of wrongdoing [PDF]. Now, it's Facciola's turn.

Facciola, who was appointed to look into Pershing Park this past March, will most likely key on three attorneys who handled or mishandled the case (and the evidence): Office of Attorney General lawyer Tom Koger, MPD's top attorney Terrence Ryan and his deputy Ron Harris. Koger has been removed from the case having already come under scrutiny. The FOP has raised concerns about Ryan. Harris may have penned a false affidavit in the case. Testimony before Judge Facciola is set to begin Oct. 12.

And of course, there's Ramsey. What did he know? When did he know it? And how did evidence—the radio transmissions, the computer files, and the videotapes—get destroyed, lost or altered?

The one thing we know is how the former chief got into GMU's hall of fame. According to Cody Telep, a GMU grad student, Ramsey had been nominated by two professors—one who worked with Ramsey in Chicago, and another who works with him now in Philly where Ramsey is the city's police commissioner. No one from D.C. participated in the nomination process.

Telep tells City Desk that he knows nothing about Pershing Park. And it wouldn't be a matter of particular concern for the Hall. "Our hall of fame is more about rigorous scientific evaluation. It's about using science in policing," he says. "That's not as relevant to the specific qualifications for the hall of fame. I don't know the details of the case so that I can't comment on that."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

"Calling the District of Columbia's alleged destruction of evidence in a long-running civil suit against the city 'very troubling,' a federal district judge in Washington today appointed a magistrate judge to find out what’s happened to missing video, audio and paper files....

Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is presiding over both suits, tapped Magistrate Judge John Facciola to examine the alleged destruction of evidence, including the missing video. Sullivan granted Facciola the authority to call upon experts for the investigation. The judge expects Facciola to make recommendations to the court."

In public filings, plaintiffs lawyers had recently spotlighted the problems with faulty videotape evidence and the troubling affidavit from a government witness. In a filing on March 27, plaintiffs wrote the court alarmed that the District is still finding materials. Even more alarming: the documents seem to refute the District's assertion that only one MPD officer shot video footage at Pershing Park.

Plaintiffs lawyers wrote that the District's Office of the Attorney General turned over 150 pages of "never-before-revealed" data concerning the use of rooftop-video recordings at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002. Those roof-top vids have never been turned over to plaintiffs:

"The newly disclosed material makes clear that the District had in its possession, for some period of time, approximately 84 videotapes containing video footage from IMF protests that occurred in 2002...As the court knows, the District previously denied any such videotapes existed in relation to the 2002 protests."

The 84 videotapes appear to be videotapes from the entire year. All the videotapes would have concerned more events than just Pershing Park.

We will have more on this soon.

During his tenure as police chief, Charles H. Ramsey faced countless challenges from coordinating an emergency response on 9/11 to helping to track down the D.C. Sniper. Of course, his job had other lower profile responsibilities like crime fighting and answering then-Councilmember Kathy Patterson's tough questioning.

So what can this veteran cop not handle?

Being deposed (again) about the mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002. Or at least being deposed (again) without some extra help. A few days ago, Ramsey's powerful attorney Mark H. Tuohey sought a protective order for the chief asking that Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola sit in on the deposition.

In other words, Ramsey did not want to be deposed by plaintiffs lawyers without a federal judge chaperoning the proceedings. In public filings, Tuohey laid out a lengthy argument for why Ramsey needs such protection.

Tuohey argued that police officials had been subjected to "wasteful" and "harassing" depositions. On March 12, Assistant Chief Peter Newsham was deposed.  Tuohey particularly objected to plaintiffs lawyers grilling Newsham about this snowball incident in which Det. Michael Baylor pulled a gun during a snowball fight.

Initially, Newsham told the press—including City Desk—that the officer did not draw his weapon.  Newsham soon changed his position as more video and photographic evidence became known. It was enough of a quirk to draw some heated questioning from plaintiffs lawyers.

Tuohey characterized the questioning of Newsham as harassment and abuse. He writes that he expects that the Newsham deposition was a mere "preview of the free-for-all and waste of time in store for Ramsey."

Tuohey also argues that Ramsey is a busy guy and shouldn't be subjected to prolonged questioning: "Ramsey is currently police commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. It is not easy for him to take time away from that demanding post, especially considering how inefficient and unfocused the depositions have been thus far."

Tuohey has to realize that Ramsey is not going to be questioned about a snowball fight. Nor is this deposition going to be a waste of time. No, he's filibustering for good reason, a reason not stated in his filing. Ramsey is going to be questioned about the recent testimony by two police officials who stated that Ramsey gave the mass arrest order for Pershing Park.

Plaintiffs lawyers, citing those police officials, are going to ask Ramsey: Did you tell your subordinates to "lock those motherfuckers up?"

Judge Facciola did not buy Tuohey's arguments. Today, he rejected the motion for a protective order. The judge wrote:

"I cannot believe that after seven years, the competent counsel who represent the parties in this case cannot conduct a deposition without adult supervision."

Ramsey's deposition is scheduled for March 26.

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

In a recent public filing, plaintiffs lawyers in the last remaining Pershing Park case provide additional evidence showing that then-Chief Charles Ramsey issued the order to mass arrest the 400 individuals on Sept. 27, 2002. All those arrests were promptly thrown out by city lawyers. More than seven years later, the arrests remain a huge controversy.

In recent depositions, two police officials testified that they heard Ramsey give the arrest order. Ramsey has repeatedly denied that he gave the command to make the mass arrests.

Captain Ralph McLean, who had previously given a similiar account, stated in his deposition: "It is my sincerest belief that Chief Ramsey said, 'lock those motherfuckers up.'"

Last week, Det. Paul Hustler backed up his affidavit with his own deposition testimony. He stated that he heard Ramsey order Assistant Chief Peter Newsham to "teach them a lesson" and "lock the motherfuckers up."

Plaintiffs lawyers go on to write:

"Hustler further testified that he was expressly told by Assistant Chief Jordan that no one was to be allowed out of the park and that even journalists would be arrested."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

One of the big mysteries in the Pershing Park case centers around the gaps in the radio dispatches during the mass arrests on Sept. 27, 2002. Plaintiffs lawyers have long argued in U.S. District Court that the tapes turned over by the District contained gaps at the crucial time of the arrests.

When 400 individuals are rounded up and arrested in a park,  it seems reasonable that there would be some police radio activity.

For a time at least, the Office of the Attorney General defended those tapes as being a complete recording of the infamous police activities in Pershing Park. Exhibit A: The affidavit of Denise Alexander [PDF].

At the time, Alexander worked as a training instructor with the District's Office of Unified Communications. In her sworn declaration, she stated: "I did not detect anything technically deficient with the recordings."

Plaintiffs attorneys countered with deposition testimony from D.C. Police Inspector James Crane [PDF] who stated that the tapes were indeed faulty.

So how did Alexander get it so wrong?

In February, Alexander was deposed. She admitted that she did not write nor edit a word of her false affidavit. In fact, that affidavit was given to her to sign by the D.C. Police Department's Deputy General Counsel Ron Harris.

According to court records and sources familiar with the matter, Alexander is clear that she did not understand or have knowledge of the allegations surrounding the problematic tapes. She was just happy that Harris had given her the extra work assignment. She was paid overtime for her tape review.

It appears that Alexander did not actually review the tapes for gaps. In an e-mail she had sent to Harris, it seems she only checked to see if the time stamps were accurate. When she was given Crane's testimony to review, she admitted that she didn't quite understand it. Crane's refutation of her affidavit may have been too technical.

Alexander admitted that she didn't even understand her affidavit. She just signed it.

The one person in charge of that affidavit, who actually understood it, and who had been aware of the controversy surrounding the faulty tapes was D.C. Police Deputy General Counsel Ron Harris.

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

In their probe of the discovery abuses, plaintiffs lawyers in one of the  Pershing Park cases may have found new evidence of alleged criminal conduct by District employees. In early February, a District employee admitted in deposition that they destroyed materials at the order of their supervisor, according to court records.

Plaintiffs lawyers in the Chang case write in a footnote in a court filing dated Feb. 19:

"The extent of the District's outrageous conduct was highlighted this week when it was learned in a deposition, that a District employee, at the order of a supervisor, destroyed 15-20 boxes of material, which included approximately 50 VHS tapes–all of which was located in the office of the individual responsible for overseeing the Joint Operations Command Center."

Yikes.

The employee deposed  is George Crawford, a computer specialist who has worked for the D.C. Police Department for 12 years. Crawford's story had been included in the Sporkin Report. But plaintiffs lawyers were able to get more details from Crawford in deposition which included the depth of document and tape destruction.

The Joint Operations Command Center is the hub that would have generated the running resume, the police log of their minute-by-minute activities. The running resume for the mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002 went missing and has never been turned over to plaintiffs.

Police video of the events has also come under scrutiny. Plaintiffs lawyers had filed a lengthy brief arguing that the tapes that had been turned over in discovery were faulty: heavily edited, out-of-sequence, and missing the moment of the mass arrests. AG Peter Nickles and Co. had defended the videos. But at a recent hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, the OAG lawyers admitted that the tapes had been edited and were merely compilations of footage.

The OAG has still failed to turn over the original videotapes.

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

On Feb. 8, plaintiffs in the last remaining Pershing Park case filed a request that would broaden the scope of the U.S. District Court's inquiry into the case's discovery abuse. Plaintiffs attorneys are asking the judge to look into the alleged issues with the D.C. Police Department's video coverage of the mass arrests at Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan is already set to hire a forensic examiner to determine how the running resume  (the department's own reported log of events) went missing, and how the department's radio dispatches went dead around the time the arrests were made.

The problematic video tapes turned over by the Office of the Attorney General may be the latest example of the discovery abuses. So far, AG Peter Nickles has thrown up some really lame excuses for why the video footage appears so corrupted.

The attorneys in the Chang case write:

"This video footage, produced in both videotape and DVD format, contains numerous anomalies that suggest it has been edited or otherwise tampered with. A forensic analysis of the original video recordings is, therefore, necessary to determine the origin and extent of any such modification or spoliation."

The District had recently testified that the video recordings had not been edited and were recorded by Sgt. Donald Yates. Yet, the District's witness, Inspector Brian Bray admitted that Yates could not have possibly filmed all the sequences since he appears in some footage.

Plaintiffs lawyers go one to dissect the video problems point by point. One of the most startling issues that has come to light is the government's use of "different time-stamps" and a "non-linear time progression." Lawyers also found that there is "an extended gap during the time of the mass arrests in Pershing Park."

The two different time stamps suggest that it's possible the tapes were altered or edited. "At worst, this discrepancy suggests that the IMF video footage has been edited and certain footage added or deleted," the plaintiffs lawyers write.

The lawyers go on to state that some of the video footage appears out of order, jumping back and forth through time (kind of like an episode of "Lost" D.C. Police-style):

"There is no apparent explanation as to how Sergeant Yates recorded events at 8:15 a.m., then traveled back in time and recorded events nearly an hour earlier from 7:21 a.m. to 7:23 a.m. and then returned to 8:15 a.m. and continued filming, unless the video has been altered."

There is also the problem with the gap in the tape. The video produced by the OAG "contains no video footage for a period of nearly 39 minutes (the longest gap in the Video other than that over the lunch hour) during which MPD and other law enforcement officers began mass arresting people in Pershing Park."

As the lawyers point out, um, this is the critical time period. It's astonishing that the government would even hand over such a video. According to the plaintiffs' filing, the District's explanation for the 39-minute gap is simple: Sgt. Yates was a really crummy director who may have been great at recording tons of b-roll of bored looking residents but failed to deliver at the crucial moment—the moment when his own department decided to arrest everyone in the park. The District has claimed that he was "distracted" and "wasn't aware the arrests had taken place."

Wow.

How could any police officer—let alone an official with a video camera—not realize that the arrests of 400 individuals were taking place?

The plaintiffs lawyers write: "the Court should order a forensic examination of the IMF Video to confirm that no video was recorded during this critical period of time."

*overused file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Talk about sending the lamb to the slaughterhouse. On January 7, Office of Unified Communications employee Denise Alexander sat down for a deposition in the last remaining Pershing Park case. Let's just say she was ill-prepared for any questioning.

But first a little background on Alexander:  Two years ago, she had submitted an affidavit [PDF] swearing that the radio dispatches between D.C. cops at Pershing Park were in perfect order. A police official soon gave a deposition [PDF] stating that the radio dispatches did appear to contain gaps; most notably, the tapes went dead during the actual mass arrests on Sept. 27, 2002. Plaintiffs had then argued repeatedly that Alexander had submitted a false affidavit.

Alexander could be on the hook for a perjury charge.

When Ret. Judge Stanley Sporkin tried to question her during his own investigation into the evidence abuses, his staff was told that she was unavailable. This reporter reached her shortly after the report was released.

With a perjury charge still a possibility, Alexander appeared before the attorneys in the Chang case. A transcript of the proceedings shows that Alexander just wasn't ready. The OAG clearly did not brief Alexander or at least failed to make her understand the personal stakes involved in her deposition.

The deposition got bad enough, quickly enough that at one point Alexander asked the plaintiffs attorney for legal advice.

Alexander believed that she was being represented by OAG lawyer Monique Pressley. Pressley jumped in and said she was not Alexander's attorney. This became the issue of the day as plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley tried to sort through the confusion.

Turley: "Are you represented by counsel today?"

Alexander: "Yes."

Turley: "And who would that be?"

Alexander: "Ms. Pressley."

Turley: "Just to confirm, Ms. Pressley, you had told us yesterday that you weren't representing this witness. Has that now changed?"

Pressley: "I'm not her personal counsel..."

Turley: "Do you understand that you do not have personal counsel today?"

Alexander: "Yes."

Moments later, Alexander didn't seem to grasp the importance of her previous affidavit.

Turley: "Are you aware that that declaration has been challenged as containing false statements?"

Alexander: "I learned of that fact."

Turley: "When did you learn of that fact?"

Alexander: "Tuesday...This week."

Turley: "How did you learn of that?"

Alexander: "Talking to Ms. Pressley."

Turley: "Are you aware that you have been specifically referenced in open court as having potential criminal liability in this matter?"

Alexander: "No."

Turley: "Are you aware that Judge Sullivan, who is the presiding judge in this case, has indicated that he may refer this case for criminal investigation?"

Alexander: "No."

Turley: "Do you understand that you have a right to have your own counsel advise you today?"

Alexander: "I'm understanding that as we speak now."

Turley then asks her if she understands the concept behind the Fifth Amendment.

Alexander went on to explain:  "Ms. Pressley did mention that I could have a lawyer, but I felt as though I didn't need—I didn't know that I would need a lawyer for this. But should I go find a lawyer?"

Turley asks Alexander if she wants her own lawyer. Alexander says yes.

In a surprising move, Pressley, the government's own attorney, presses for the deposition to proceed. She even appears to contradict Alexander's testimony.

Turley: "I am not sure how to proceed, Ms. Pressley. The witness was unaware that allegations have been made about her personally?"

Pressley: "No, she wasn't."

Turley: "She was not aware of that?"

Pressley: "She was not unaware of that."

After the break, Alexander had something she wanted to say: "Yesterday I felt comfortable with going forward with the deposition, but since the beginning of this, I want to have a lawyer present."

And that was the end of Alexander's deposition. What a mess!

A few months ago, Det. Paul Hustler came forward and stated in his sworn affidavit that he had heard D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey give the order to arrest the 400 individuals in Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002. The testimony had contradicted the former chief's sworn-statements in which he denied ordering the arrests.

Ramsey has long since left the police department. He is now Philly's top cop. Kathy Patterson, the councilmember who led the investigation [PDF] into Pershing Park, is no longer in politics.

Even seven years later, the events of that day still provoke. Hustler's deposition cost the city big time. The District has agreed to pay Ramsey's attorney more than $100,000 in legal fees for three months worth of work–much of that work must concern Hustler's testimony. The AG Peter Nickles wasted more time and money filing a motion that essentially attacked Hustler's character. At the last hearing on the Pershing Park cases, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan allowed defendants to depose Hustler. This will only cost the city more dough.

And yet, Hustler's testimony concerning Ramsey's alleged order is really, really old news. Another police official had pretty much said the same thing on Nov. 5, 2003.

Here is what Hustler stated in his affidavit in mid-November:

"I was standing about 8 to 9 feet away from Chief Ramsey and Assistant Chief Fitzgerald, with Assistant Chief Jordan and Assistant Chief Newsham standing around. At this time no arrests of those protesters had been made. As I walked closer, about 5 to 6 feet away from them, I heard Chief Ramsey say we're going to lock them up and teach them a lesson."

Here is what Captain Ralph McLean stated about the arrests at Pershing Park  in his testimony before the D.C. Council on Nov. 5, 2003:

"I remember a group that was involved in discussions, Chief Ramsey, Chief Jordan, Assistant Chief Fitzgerald, Chief Newsham. There were several other people. I think Joe Gentile was there for a while, but I'm not sure at what point he came and left. He came and went several times....The main discussion I remember was OK, we've got them, what are we going to do with them?"

McLean goes on to state:

"It was—in my mind—it was a lengthy discussion. It could have taken a minute or less, but there was a lot of back and forth between Chief Ramsey, Chief Newsham. Chief Jordan was particularly vocal."

McLean was then asked what Ramsey's said during the discussion:

"[Ramsey] ordered Assistant Chief Newsham to lock the protesters in Pershing Park up....It is very vivid in my memory....My recollection is pretty much that Chief Ramsey said, lock them up."

After the discussion broke up, McLean questioned Newsham about having to arrest everyone in the park:

"I said, 'OK, Chief, exactly what are we going to lock them up for?' And he stopped and he turned toward me and said, 'Well, what do we have?' I said, 'Well, the last group, they were definitely off their permit. We can lock them up for parading without a permit.' I said, 'But there were other people in the park. I don't know what we can do about that.' And he said, 'Well, you heard [Ramsey], we're locking them up.' I said, 'OK.'"

McLean said that no one conducting the department's internal investigation into Pershing Park interviewed him. "I thought it was kind of odd," he told the Council. "But, you know, that's not—that's not my place....I didn't understand why nobody had spoken to me."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

"As I walked closer, about five or six feet away from them, I heard Chief Ramsey say, 'We're going to lock them up and teach them a lesson.'"

This quote taken from Det. Paul Hustler's affidavit filed in mid-November in the Pershing Park case didn't just contradict former Chief Charles Ramsey's previous testimony that he did not order the now-infamous mass arrests of 400 individuals on Sept. 27, 2002. It embarrassed the police department, and it infuriated the Office of the Attorney General. It has also proved to be extremely costly to the city.

In a motion filed last week [PDF], Ramsey's attorney Mark Tuohey III asked that the court approve lawyer fees for work conducted between Sept. 1 and Nov. 30. The District has already agreed to pay Tuohey's fees.

And how much is the District is willing to pay Tuohey for those three months worth of work? More than one hundred thousand dollars—$119,615 and 36 cents.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Successful individuals ring in the New Year with a set of resolutions that lay out upgrades to behavior and personality. Successful organizations must do the same, and that's where Washington City Paper's 2010 New Year's resolutions come in. Though we did some good things in 2009—including the feat of continuing to exist—there's so much more we have to do in our pursuit of perfection.

Here we go, in no particular order of priority:

1. Lose weight. We know, you have no faith in us here—you think we're just saying that. But listen up: We have an exercise role model in this city! We have at our disposal a man who's been designated one of the world's 25 fittest! We have Adrian Fenty! So look for us out there  mimicking his training schedule, running early-morning intervals and pedaling around Hains Point at lunchtime. There is one caveat: The mayor's swim-bike-run regimen quite possibly has him losing his mind. But if our own cardiovascular obsession means zero percent body fat and a stunning physique, that seems like a small concession to us.

2. Step up coverage of Pershing Park. The events of Sept. 27, 2002, have gone underreported in the local media, and City Paper is a big part of the problem. If you don't know what a "running resume" is by now, then we haven't done our job. As the remaining civil case in the Pershing Park debacle continues to heat up, we promise not just four or five weekly updates on the matter, but rather nine to 15. In the additional posts, we will interview lawyers on what filings are coming up, what fonts they prefer to use in their exhibits, and the thickness of the paper they use to notify city attorneys of their demands. Finally, we are working up a multimedia presentation on hogtying.

Stay tuned to City Desk for the rest.

In a recent hearing in the Pershing Park case, Judge Emmet Sullivan warned D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles that he "was playing games with the wrong judge."

In a filing last week [PDF], plaintiffs lawyers suggest Nickles is not taking Sullivan's threat seriously.  Lawyers in the Chang case assert that the crafty AG is still playing games with discovery.

Nickles and Co. had handed over 3,000 pages of material to plaintiffs. The only problem: these pages were overly redacted. In some cases, entire pages were blacked out. Nickles is required by law to justify each redaction. In this case, the marked-up pages came without explanation.

This is the third time Nickles has used this redaction tactic.

The plaintiffs lawyers write:

"This Court is all too familiar with the District's discovery abuses in this case. One distressingly familiar contrivance used by the District to avoid its discovery obligations has been to redact or withhold entirely relevant documents on the basis of unsupported claims of law enforcement or deliberative process privileges. This is nothing more than a stalling tactic."

In Nickles' world, almost any document qualifies for redaction. Plaintiffs lawyers have seven years of litigation to support this claim. In a footnote, they cite one hilarious example of the AG's Sharpie abuse.

One document had been redacted for years, the lawyers write, on the basis of law enforcement privilege. The document turned out to be a  "single-page, bullet-point guide for the proper use of a mountain bike."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

In this morning's hearing in U.S. District Court, Judge Emmet Sullivan edged ever closer to referring the Pershing Park case to the Department of Justice—signaling he's close to handing the matter over to Attorney General Eric Holder.

But first, Sullivan wants to order up one more investigative tool at his disposal: some serious tech support.

Following up on the recommendations in the Sporkin Report, Sullivan ordered that he would hire a forensic examiner to investigate the missing and/or destroyed evidence in the case. He added that the examiner would be selected based on recommendations from both parties and would be paid for by the District.

It was unclear whether the forensic examiner would study both the missing running resume issue and the gaps in the radio tapes from the mass arrests in Pershing Park on Sept. 27, 2002.

"I think it should be someone appointed at the discretion of the court," Sullivan stated. "And the city is going to pay for it."

In the days leading up to the hearing, tensions had see-sawed among the parties. Two days ago, an $8.25 million settlement was reached between the 400 or so plaintiffs in the Barham case and the Office of the Attorney General. But settlement talks in the remaining case, the Chang case, appeared to have stalled.

AG Peter Nickles submitted several filings late last night. In one, he filed a motion to halt all depositions.

Before Judge Sullivan, Nickles played up his pro-bono days when he was the one battling government corruption; he clearly hates the fact that he's now seen as the bad guy. At least twice, he stressed that his reputation is on the line.

"I'm not trying to hide anything," Nickles insisted, later telling Judge Sullivan, "I'm trying to clear the air here. You're the boss."

To which Sullivan replied: "That's exactly right. And we're clear about that."

And the Boss still wants answers to the mystery of what happened to the running resume and the radio tapes. In addition to the hiring of the forensic examiner, Sullivan made other decisions critical to this fact-finding mission.

Sullivan denied Nickles' attempt to halt depositions. At the request of the U.S. Park Police attorney, he granted that defense lawyers could depose a key witness, Det. Paul Hustler, who had testified in an affidavit that he heard Chief Charles Ramsey give the arrest order in Pershing Park.

Changing his stance from last night's filings and his recent protective order requests, Nickles suddenly warmed to the idea of more depositions. "Discovery can go on forever," he told Sullivan.

Sullivan moved up the trial to date a month–to September 2010. Chang plaintiffs attorney Jonathan Turley said he would be ready to go to trial.

Sullivan also made clear that no settlement would prevent sanctions in the case nor would it prevent him from referring the matter to criminal authorities.

Sullivan spent serious time questioning lawyers about whether he should go ahead and refer the matter to Holder. Barham plaintiffs attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard said it was time. Turley agreed and argued that the criminal investigation would not interrupt the civil proceedings in his case.

Nickles told Sullivan that he believed the forensics examiner should do their work first before any referrals were made. "I think it's better to have more knowledge," Nickles argued.

Sullivan agreed to wait to see what the forensics examiner finds.

No matter what happens, Turley is itching for a trial. He told Sullivan that despite all the publicity the case has generated, a new law from the D.C. Council and millions in settlement money, one recently deposed cop—Officer Michael Smith—testified that he thinks he did nothing wrong that day in Pershing Park and would do it all over again.

"We're going to fight vigorously to get these witnesses and this evidence before a federal jury," Turley said after the hearing.

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

*follow me on Twitter.

For D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, Pershing Park isn't over. Though the city's top lawyer had just settled a big lawsuit with 400 plaintiffs over the mass arrests that took place on Sept. 27, 2002, there is another, more stubborn suit sitting out there.

Attorneys in the Chang case represent just four plaintiffs. But these folks are serious: They were the first to file suit over Pershing Park in federal court, and they have already signaled that they won't be content with $18,000 bucks per plaintiff and a few stipulations that city lawyers will safeguard evidence in future cases.

Yesterday afternoon, Nickles met with the Chang principals in the hope of reaching a settlement. It was the first meeting between the parties, and Nickles had a lot riding on the outcome. If he could make a deal, he could save the District millions of dollars in attorney fees and court sanctions, and save his people from defending a tough set of facts at a trial scheduled to start in October 2010.

Could Nickles make Pershing Park go away for good?

No. The meeting was a brief one. Plaintiffs lawyer Jonathan Turley would not comment on the substance of the meeting but says a trial appears inevitable.

“It is unlikely that we will see a resolution of these issues without a trial and a verdict," Turley says. "We have assumed that a trial would occur in this case for years. All I can say is we continue to look forward to Oct. 2010, when we can put these witnesses and this evidence before a jury.”

Late last night, Turley and Co. filed a motion [PDF] in U.S. District Court that made their intentions all too clear.

The papers ask to amend the Chang complaint to include the allegations over the discovery abuses.

What does this mean? They want to put the destruction and alternation of evidence before a D.C. jury. It's possible that lawyers under Nickles and in the D.C. Police Department's general counsel office would be compelled to testify about how critical evidence went missing or was destroyed. Already, at least one official appears to have given a false affidavit.

The evidence problems range from the withholding of documents for years, to D.C. Police film and radio recordings containing mysterious gaps to the infamous missing running resume, the play-by-play documentation by the police concerning the mass arrests at Pershing Park.

At this point in the seven-year-old litigation, the discovery abuses have become way more than a sideshow. The plaintiffs' filing reads:

"These proposed amendments are obvious and represent a well-founded response to the flagrant efforts by the District defendants to obstruct both Plaintiffs' rights to recovery and the civil processes of this Court. While these discovery violations have arisen at every stage of this litigation, starting with the District Defendants' failure to preserve documents immediately after the arrests or even after the commencement of this litigation a month later, some of the most serious transgressions came to light only recently."

Plaintiffs reference the Sporkin Report and the allegation that the police department's general counsel withheld relevant documents for the past five years. They claim that the withholding of documents and discovery materials had been a tactic from the very beginning.

The plaintiffs lawyers quote from an e-mail in which Assistant Chief Peter Newsham wrote in the aftermath of the Sept. 27, 2002, Pershing Park arrests: "I am very reluctant to share our tactics and strategies with defense attorneys."

The plaintiffs attorneys go on to list some of the subsequent discovery problems aside from the missing running resume and faulty radio tapes:

*A witness testified in deposition that Chief Ramsey's computer was never searched for relevant documents and was destroyed or wiped clean when he left the department.

*In 2004, the District performed a very limited search of police e-mails.

*It was only after the discovery process ended that the District then produced more than 22,000 pages of relevant documents; they were only produced after Judge Emmet Sullivan slammed Nickles in open court. Even these documents contained gaps and unjustified redactions.

*Plaintiffs are still waiting for the District to turn over all relevant video footage. They write: "The District has produced only two unique videotapes that contain footage of the events on Sept. 27, 2002—both of which contain crucial gaps in the footage that correspond to the timing of the arrests at Pershing Park." Six cameras were designated to shoot footage of Pershing Park that day.

*Nickles has failed to live up to his promises to the court. The plaintiffs lawyers write: "Despite his stated commitment to do so, Attorney General Nickles has failed to undertake a comprehensive investigation of these discovery abuses."

When asked about the filing, Turley wrote in an e-mail to City Desk:

"The amended complaint describes growing evidence of the intentional effort of high-ranking District officials to destroy or alter evidence related to the unlawful arrests during September 2002.  The amended complaint would allow a jury to consider evidence of obstruction, spoliation, and perjury.  Regardless of whether the Court now refers this matter for criminal investigation in light of the Sporkin report and recent witness statements, we believe this matter should be put before a jury to render its judgment on the conduct of these officials."

*Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

*follow me on Twitter.