“The return is invalid because it has come to the attention of the court that the subject contracting parties to the marriage and you, the officiant, did not all personally participate in a marriage ceremony performed within the jurisdictional and territorial limits of the District of Columbia,” the letter read.

After receiving the letter, the couple looked into legal options to challenge the decision, Alexander-Reid said. They were told they didn't have a strong case and will try to fly back to D.C. this weekend to be legally married.

The full letter:

Johnson, 18, and McInnis, 19, may have run into zealous Metro cops eager to stamp out youth violence on trains and at stations. On May 25, 2010, Johnson says, he, McInnis, and two friends were at L'Enfant at about 11:30 p.m, waiting to catch a train to Southern Avenue.

As youths sometimes do, Johnson's buddies decided to past the time being rowdy. "They playing around or whatever, horse playing," Johnson remembers. Though his friends might have looked like they were fighting, he swears they weren't.

As the two went at it, Johnson spotted some transit cops approaching. Trying to keep his friends from landing in trouble, he got in the middle of the roughhousing. But it was too late, the cops had arrived and seemed to believe there was something menacing going on. Johnson says he tried to explain everything was OK. But as he talked, one of the cops grabbed his arm.

Johnson yanked it away and the cops slammed him to the ground. "I ain't doing nothing," Johnson repeatedly protested. They maced and handcuffed him. Johnson says he doesn't know why the cops reacted the way they did. "They chipped my tooth."

That's about when McInnis got in trouble. She, too, kept insisting Johnson hadn't done anything and—Johnson says—"they told her to leave and she wouldn't."

Though prosecutors didn't pursue a case against Johnson, they did go after McInnis. Charging papers filed against her say, "While officers were attempting to effect an arrest the defendant (later identified as Ms. Latrelle Dareece McInnis) became very aggressive walking up behind officers hindering them from effecting the arrest. The defendant acted in a disorderly manner, yelling profanities in a building at night to annoy a number of patrons by causing them to gather or flee the immediate area."

The papers go on to allege that when Rivas attempted to escort McInnis away, McInnis said, "I'm not going nowhere, bitch" and threw a punch at Rivas. Rivas maced and arrested her.

So far, McInnis' non-jury trial isn't going so well for her. According to Johnson, a witness for the defense was arrested for an outstanding warrant when he came to the courthouse to reveal what he saw.

"Now we all fucked up," says Johnson.

Another problem? Despite all the cameras in the station, Metro says it can't produce video of the incident—footage Johnson believes would exonerate his girlfriend. From the stand, Rivas said the video was gone, as Metro records over its footage about every two days.

We spoke with some newlyweds, including two women who didn't know gay marriage hadn't been legal in the District until yesterday morning.

Later, protesters turned on each other when Pastor Rob Schenck was shouted down by a man who didn't realize that Schenck, too, opposed gay marriage.

Observe:

Related: “It’s an Abomination”: 11-Year-Old Westboro Baptist Protests Gay Marriage in D.C.

There's a twist: Neither of the parties is suing.

Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi, independent of both, has announced he's going to D.C. Superior Court to settle an ongoing dispute over review of city contracts. He'll be asking a judge "in the interest of maintaining good governance" to determine whether the council has the authority to order payments stopped on certain city contracts not submitted for the council's approval.

Background: This whole thing is about something called "option-year contracts." Until last January, the executive branch sent the council all contracts worth up to $1 million per year, as well as any renewals (or "option years") of those contracts. But last fall, Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry started filing a rash of contract disapproval resolutions, including on option-year renewals, a situation that nearly led to the stoppage of certain important city services.

That led Attorney General Peter Nickles to send an order to city functionaries ordering them not to send option-year renewals. The council realized what was happening and passed legislation requiring the city to send the renewals for approval. Nickles refused to comply, and so to force his hand and maintain institutional prerogatives, the council passed emergency legislation ordering the CFO's office to stop payment on all contracts not submitted for council approval.

If the payments are stopped, city officials fear nothing short of a government shutdown. Vincent Gray and the council's lawyers say the legislature has that power; Nickles says it does not. LL will summarize their legal positions thusly: Nickles makes a constitutional claim that the legislature cannot "abrogate" contracts; the council says that you can't abrogate a contract that's void—and contracts not approved by the council are void.

According to a letter sent by Gandhi, the two branches "are continuing to discuss a compromise" but "neither has indicated that any agreement may be achieved soon, if at all." Thus the litigation.

David Umansky, Gandhi's spokesperson, says a suit is likely to be filed "within a week or two." The CFO's office has hired the firm Wiley Rein and is in talks with partner Larry Mirel, a former D.C. insurance commissioner.

Gandhi's hand was forced, he says, when the mayor and council ponied up differing legal conclusions on the contracts issue. "It's almost Marbury v. Madison," he says. "The executive says one thing, the legislative says another."

Nickles calls the suit "a wise move," adding, "I think the key point is that he's going to continue to pay the vendors."

The litigation will mark the first time an interbranch battle has gone to a judge since the halcyon days of Sharon Pratt Kelly and John A. Wilson. In that case, Wilson, and the council, lost.

Gandhi's letter in full:

Natwar M. Gandhi
Chief Financial Officer
January 29, 2010

The Honorable Adrian M. Fenty
Mayor of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 327
Washington, B.C. 20004

The Honorable Vincent C. Gray
Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 504
Washington, D.C. 20004

Re: Option Year Contracts

Dear Mayor Fenty and Chairman Gray:

This letter is to outline my immediate actions with regard to both the Unauthorized Contract Stop Payment Emergency Act of 2009 (A 18-2009) (the "Stop Payment Act") and the Unauthorized Contract Stop Payment Extension Emergency Act of 2010 (B18-620) (the "Postponement Act"). The Stop Payment Act became law on January 13, 2010, and requires the Chief Financial Officer to stop payment at midnight on January 20, 2010 (the "Stop-Payment Date") on certain $1 million contracts let in calendar year 2009 unless the Council ratifies the contracts (the "Affected Contracts").

The Executive did not submit the Affected Contracts to the Council. In response, on January 19, 2010, the Council adopted the Postponement Act which repeals the Stop Payment Act and directs that the Chief Financial Officer stop payment on the Affected Contracts on January 27, 2010 unless they have been received by the Council by that date. Although the Postponement Act was not yet law, given the clear intent of the Postponement Act to delay the effect of the Stop Payment Act until January 27, 2010, and after consultation with Chairman Gray, I did not stop payment on the Affected Contracts on midnight January 20, 2010.

During the last few days all parties have informed me that stopping payment on the Affected Contracts may, among other concerns, create hardships for those District citizens receiving benefits or services under some of the Affected Contracts, create financial difficulties for some of the contracting parties that have provided services under some of the Affected Contracts, and increase future District contracting costs because of concerns about the reliability of the timing of contract payments.

The Affected Contracts have yet to be delivered to the Council, so the Council's implementation delay until January 27, 2010 has expired. Despite my understanding that the Council and the Executive are continuing to discuss a compromise, neither has indicated that any agreement may be achieved soon, if at all. Thus, I have considered the materials provided to me by both the Executive and the Council and decided to take the following course.

Pursuant to the Home Rule Act authority granted to the independent Chief Financial Officer by the Congress and the intent behind that grant of authority, I am compelled to act pursuant to section 424(d) of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code § l-204.24d) ("Notwithstanding any provisions of [the Home Rule Act] which grant authority to other entities of the District, the Chief Financial Officer shall have the following duties and shall take such steps as are necessary to perform these duties...."), section 424(d)(6) of the Home Rule Act (the Chief Financial Officer is charged with "[supervising and assuming responsibility for financial transactions to ensure adequate control of revenues and resources."), and section 424(d)(16) of the Home Rule Act (the Chief Financial Officer must determine "the regularity, legality, and correctness of... bills, invoices, payrolls, claims, demands or charges.").

Accordingly, in the interest of maintaining good governance in the District of Columbia, to continue those operations of the District government which would otherwise cease if the Affected Contracts were to be suspended, to prevent a rash of lawsuits against the District from affected contractors, and to protect the District's credibility in the financial markets, for the time being I will authorize payments under the Affected Contracts, when such payments are properly due and owing pursuant to the Affected Contracts. In addition, because the Council and the Executive have advanced differing legal opinions and facts regarding this issue, I have retained counsel and initiated the process to seek a declaratory judgment from the D.C. Superior Court to determine the controlling law in this disagreement between the Council and the Executive.

I remain available to further discuss these matters with you at your convenience. Sincerely,

Natwar M. Gandhi
Chief Financial Officer

cc: All Councilmembers
Neil Albert
Peter Nickles
Eric Goulet
Brian Flowers

In a 23-page decision [PDF] granting the Board of Elections and Ethics' motion for summary judgment, Macaluso found that ballot initiatives are indeed subject to the city's Human Right Act, and that the initiative filed by the Stand4Marriage coalition to define marriage as between a man and a woman violates that act.

Additionally, Macaluso addressed whether the landmark 1995 Dean v. District case, which prohibited gay marriages at the time, still applies. The D.C. Council, she writes, "changed the landscape Dean surveyed" and thus "Dean is no longer controlling."

D.C. Police detectives worked quickly to solve the murder which took place last Wednesday as Rawlings was trying to board a Metro bus along H Street NE. According to an affidavit [PDF} filed in D.C. Superior Court, there were several witnesses that came forward.

In reading the affidavit, one thing is clear: Jeffrey Britt will not be the only one charged in this case. Police recovered two different caliber shell casings from the crime scene, and witnesses point to other individuals involved in the killing:

"One such witness...reported that it observed two black males armed with guns shooting into the well of the Metro bus."

The affidavit goes on to describe a murder plot developed in front of witnesses and carried out within minutes.

While attending the funeral service for Ashton Hunter, one witness saw Rawlings walk into the proceedings. At that point, several attendees of the funeral talked about Rawlings' supposed involvement in Hunter's murder. The witness heard a "Jeff" state: "I should kill that nigga!"

After Rawlings left the funeral home, this witness saw "Jeff" and two other individuals standing near Rawlings. Rawlings soon left. Jeff and the two others followed. A short time later, the witness heard gun shots and observed the three individuals running back towards the funeral home. The witness said that he noticed they were armed with guns. The witness identified Jeff as Jeffrey Britt.

Another witness saw the actual murder. The affidavit states:

"[The witness] observed one of the black males who was with 'Jeff' shooting a gun at the decedent who was lying on the steps of the Metro bus....It subsequently observed the black male aiming the gun at him and pulling the trigger, but the gun did not go off because it appeared to be out of bullets."

After the murder, detectives found on Rawlings a Smith and Wesson 9mm semi-automatic handgun and a "bottle containing a clear liquid that had the chemical odor consistent with...PCP."

Retchin was widely expected to ignore the substance of the referendum proponents' argument—i.e., that the District's human rights law does not, in fact, prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot, as the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled earlier this month. Instead, she was expected to rule only on whether she could stop the marriage law from taking effect next week—an important question, since that would prevent a referendum and render any other legal arguments moot.

But her ruling is broad.

'Because the Court finds the Board correctly concluded that the proposed referendum would violate the District of Columbia Human Rights Act,' Retchin writes, 'and because Petitioners have failed to establish the necessary prerequisites for staying the legislation, the Court denies Petitioners’ requests for relief.'

In particular, Retchin found that the landmark 1995 Dean v. District decision does not apply to the issue of recognizing out-of-state marriages 'because Dean involved a different factual scenario and presented a different legal question than is before the Court.'

Retchin bought many of the arguments presented by the BOEE and the D.C. Council: 'Since 1995, when Dean was decided, there have been many significant changes in the District’s marriage law. As the District points out, seven of the eight gender-specific provisions in the marriage statute cited by Dean have been amended to make them gender-neutral....Moreover, since Dean, the DCHRA has been strengthened to afford more protection against discrimination. The DCHRA now proscribes discrimination based upon a person's “perceived or actual” membership in a protected category.'

Plus there's this point, perhaps the strongest: 'The Court in Dean did not consider whether the government could refuse to recognize the legal right of persons to remain married solely because of their sexual orientation. In fact, the Court in Dean could not have addressed this issue because when Dean was decided in 1995, no state had legalized same-sex marriage.'

On the issue of stopping the clock, Retchin decided that such a move was not warranted. For one thing, she bought the BOEE's argument in ruling that the referendum backers' 16-day delay in applying for a ballot measure 'was inexcusable.' Furthermore, she points out, the backers can always enter the initiative process, which is not subject to the 30-day congressional review timeline like the referendum process is. (But it is, of course, also subject to the D.C. Human Rights Act prohibitions.) And Retchin also expressed doubts that she had the authority to stop the enactment of legislation in any case: 'To do so may encroach on the well-defined role of the Council and Congress.... It is not in the public interest for courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the time permitted for the referendum process particularly where, as here, the legislature already has prescribed a strict and explicit time period for all referenda.'

Writes Retchin, 'At bottom, the harm about which Petitioners complain is not based on a denial of the right to referendum. Rather, they simply disagree with legislation enacted by our duly-elected Council. A citizen’s disagreement with constitutionally sound legislation, whether based on political, religious or moral views, does not rise to the level of an actionable harm....Petitioners’ remedy is to pursue an initiative or to seek redress through the political process by lobbying the Council and by exercising their right to vote.'

In other words, Retchin says: I'm no activist judge!

Expect a petition to the D.C. Court of Appeals forthwith; this is likely to be the last stand for judicial intervention in gay marriage in the District of Columbia.

The move comes two days after the Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that such a referendum, to overturn a recently passed District law recognizing out-of-state gay marriages, would violate the D.C. Human Right Act and thus would be ineligible to appear on the ballot.

The petition [PDF], filed by Bishop Harry Jackson and six other backers, says the BOEE decision "is erroneous because the determination directly contradicts the D.C. Court of Appeals' decision in Dean...holding that the current D.C. law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the DC-HRA."

The petition, while it spends a great deal of space on the legislative process that led to the law, in the end relies heavily on the Dean v. District case, decided in 1995 by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Here's the meat of their argument:

The Board's denial of the Referendum directly contradicts Dean. The Court of Appeals in Dean conclusively determined that the refusal to afford same-sex couples the status of "marriage" does not run afoul of the DC-HRA. It is true that the Jury and Marriage Act of 2009, at issue here, purports to addresses only the recognition of same-sex "marriages" from other jurisdictions, rather than, as in Dean, authorizing same-sex "marriages" in D.C. in the first instance. But that is a distinction without a difference. It is illogical to say that, under Dean, limiting the status of "marriage" in D.C. to opposite-sex couples in the first instance is consistent with the DC-HRA, but that denying the very same status to same-sex unions deemed "marriages" in other jurisdictions is not. Either way the issue is the same: whether refusing to afford same-sex couples the status of "marriage" contravenes the DC-HRA. Dean clearly holds it does not.

Note the scare quotes around "same-sex 'marriage.'"

The lawyers for the referendum proponents—Steven H. Aden, Austin R. Nimocks, and Brian W. Raum—are all affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian conservative legal advocacy group founded in 1994 by a group of politically active evangelicals (including Focus of the Family's James Dobson). Aden is based in D.C., while Raum (who testified at a BOEE hearing) and Nimocks are from Scottsdale, Ariz. (As an aside: It's clear that these guys are new to the local scene: They issued a summons to "Robert J. Spagnoletti, Corporation Counsel of D.C." Spagnoletti hasn't been in government since 2006, and the corp counsel was renamed the attorney general in 2004.)

The case has been assigned to Judge Judith Retchin, with an initial conference scheduled for September. But the petitioners have asked for expedited review, since the law is scheduled to exit congressional review and go into effect on July 6—putting it out of the reach of referendum. They have also asked for "other declaratory relief and permanent and temporary injunctive relief as may be necessary to ensure that the Referendum is accepted by the Board and that the referendum process moves forward." It is unclear whether a judge has the power to "stop the clock" on congressional review while the issue is being decided.

Retchin, on the bench since 1992, is a former assistant U.S. attorney who been known in her judicial career for her tough sentencing in criminal matters—most infamously for ordering the incarceration of paraplegic Jonathan Magbie for marijuana possession. Magbie later died after being sent to D.C. Jail; Retchin took tough criticism from the Washington Post's Colbert I. King and others for not checking if the jail was medically equipped to handle Magbie.

Read up if you missed the earlier coverage. The afternoon's testimony introduced the two women who accompanied Brazil to the rowdy night at the tattoo parlor. First to testify was Elena Mirsayapova, 30, who has served as Brazil's assistant since last July. A native of the Russian republic of Bashkortostan, Mirsayapova first met her boss when she was working at Spezie restaurant downtown, where the former at-large councilmember was a regular. In case you were wondering: No, she denies ever having had a romantic relationship with the married Brazil. They're friends "on a limited basis," she says. The other woman, the person who was actually getting the tattoo, was Petra Nikolow, 53, a Capitol Hill resident and dental assistant who is a friend of Brazil's.

Together, the two filled in details of the fateful evening. "That was a crazy day," Nikolow testified.

It began around 5 p.m., when Brazil and Mirsayapova met Nikolow at West End steakhouse Smith & Wollensky for drinks and apps. What kind of apps? Two large seafood platters, both ladies testified. In order to establish that Brazil was operating on a full stomach, attorney G. Allen Dale asked Mirsayapova what her boss had eaten. "He had all the claws!" she said. As for drinks, it went like this: Nikolow had a vodka tonic; Mirsyapova had a "glass of red wine and a splash"; and Brazil had two glasses, tops, of white wine.

"Harold always has white wine," Nikolow said.

During the course of the meal, Nikolow, recently separated, persuaded her friends to join her that Thursday night as she got her first-ever tattoo; they didn't want to, initially—Mirsayapova said she wanted to go pick up her young son, and Brazil planned to go back to work. But, Nikolow explained, "I said I needed some moral support." She'd done her research and settled on Jinx-Proof in Georgetown; the three shared a cab over to the shop. There, Nikolow signed the necessary paperwork—including a certification that she was not intoxicated—and paid cash for her tattoo, on her shoulder. She went to the ink booth in the back of the shop while Brazil and Mirsayapova waited on a bench out front.

The trouble began, and the stories diverge, when the artist inking Nikolow started up his equipment. The buzzing sound alarmed Mirsayapova, who walked back to check on her friend. That's when counterman Francis "Tad" Peyton told her to get back out front, per store policy. Whether he did that in a polite or some other tone of voice, and how many times he did it, was debated to no particular end. But virtually all parties agree that Brazil's crime began when he objected to Peyton's order. When the conflict began in earnest, Nikolow was still in the back and Mirsayapova was either coming back into the waiting area or already there. Nikolow claimed that she was able to see an employee push Brazil "really hard." As the melee ensured, Mirsayapova said, "I heard the N-word." Both her and Nikolow testified that Jinx-Proof employees took Brazil to the floor and starting choking and punching him, first on his back, then on his stomach. Both said Brazil said he had trouble breathing and asked to be let go, and both testified as to seeing bruises and other injuries on Brazil afterward.

How credible was their testimony? Prosecutor Justin Dillon cross-examined only Mirsayapova before proceedings recessed for the day; he was able to establish a measure of confusion, if not contradiction, in her version of events, especially in her location during the melee and her identifications of which shop employees were involved. Dillon also pointed out that nowhere in a statement she gave to police short after the incident did she mention the "N-word" being spoken. Mirsayapova replied, credibly, that she told cops much more than what they chose to write down in the one-page statement. That, however, does little to support Dale's contention, presented in his opening argument, that Brazil was riled to the point of violence by the epithet.

On Monday, Dillon will begin by cross-examining Nikolow. She testified last today that Brazil is both a truthful and peaceful man.

"Harold's a teddy bear," she said.