The former chief of staff to Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham, Ted Loza, will spend eight months in prison, another four on supervised release, and 150 hours doing community service.

Loza, who pleaded guilty to taking $1,500 in gratuities in connection with legislation on the taxi industry, was sentenced Tuesday in federal court, four months after his guilty plea. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said he was considering more than the money; he was looking at "the measure of a man," as he imposed sentencing. Prosecutors had asked the judge to send Loza to prison for 14 months, the maximum time allowable under sentencing guidelines for his offense. Loza's defense attorneys had asked for probation. (Due to an editing error, this post originally said Loza had pleaded guilt to taking bribes, not gratuities.)

In arguing for the longer sentence, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb had asked the judge to send a clear message: "You sell your position. You go to jail." In arguing that Loza's history of community service should earn him probation, Loza's lawyer, Pleasant Brodnax, decided to read a poem at one point: "Not, how did he die? But how did he live?" the poem starts.

The poem is called the "Measure of a Man," and the judge referred back to it several times while explaining his sentencing decision. "One considers the measure of a man like Mr. Brodnax said, the good bad and the ugly," Friedman said. "I guess I'm mixing my metaphors."

Leaving the hearing, Loza, who apologized for his actions in court, seemed to think the proceeding had gone well. "It was a good day," he told some supporters.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

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.

In a 46-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan held today that D.C.'s Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) is not yet ready to come out from under its court oversight. This represents a significant setback for Attorney General Peter Nickles, who has pressed to end the court-appointed monitoring of the troubled agency.

Hogan had taken months to come to his decision. In July 2008, in the aftermath of the Banita Jacks tragedy, Children's Rights filed its contempt motion. Soon, Hogan ordered CFSA to come up with a plan to fix itself. The District had a difficult time actually completing this task. Instead, Nickles drafted a plan without the court monitor's approval. Bad idea.

Meanwhile, Nickles and Fenty selected Dr. Roque Gerald to run the agency. They did so without consulting Children's Rights–another bad idea, and a violation of a court order. Hogan did not like this move, and Nickles ended up having to play defense.

Imagine all that Hogan had to sift through before issuing today's ruling. But wait, there's more!

As the debate continued through 2009, even a CFSA official suggested court oversight was a good thing, and University Legal Services published another scathing report on the agency. The court monitor issued a report critical of CFSA's foster care. And teens testified before the D.C. Council on the difficulties of aging out of the system.

What's at stake here? A review of recent Child Fatality Review Board reports suggests that a lot of kids die under the city's watch. Within the past year, two newborns died at D.C. General's family shelter.

In his ruling, Hogan held Mayor Adrian Fenty in contempt for not consulting with plaintiffs or court monitor in hiring Gerald.

Hogan also held the city in contempt for failing to come up a plan approved by the court monitor. He ruled that the District showed a "blatant disregard" in failing to work with the court monitor. He writes: "Intransigence may be a nominal improvement from indifference, but it is still unacceptable in this context."

Hogan dismissed the District's motion to end federal court oversight. In a number of key areas—conducting timely investigations, adoptions, and training of CFSA employees—the judge expressed skepticism that CFSA had improved enough to show compliance with court-approved benchmarks. He writes: "Unfortunately, in light of the District's refusal to abide by the simplest provisions of the Stipulated Order, the Court cannot find that a period of good faith has persisted. Nor has the District achieved, let alone established a period of consistent compliance."

While Hogan agreed that the District has made progress in improving CFSA, it has not done so in a complete, real and sustained way. "Undoubtedly, CFSA has taken measures to buttress reforms," Hogan writes. "But the defendants have not illustrated any, at least not in a manner that inspires enough confidence to support a conclusion that the agency's progress is 'durable and self-sustaining.'"

In his conclusion, Hogan writes:

"Extensive litigation on these motions has changed little. Although the District's child welfare system has improved drastically from the dismal state it was once in, the defendants have yet to deliver a fully satisfactory child welfare system....Supervision must persist until the defendants demonstrate that the District reliably satisfies its responsibilities."

The result: All the parties must formulate a plan for CFSA.

"It's very much the right ruling," Children's Rights Executive Director Marcia Lowry tells City Desk.  "I'm hoping this is finally going to ensure the case moves forward to accomplish the purposes of the agreement which the District has really stalled on."

Lowry still sees the courts as the appropriate venue for monitoring the troubled child-welfare agency.

"It's a fight over doing what's necessary," Lowry says. "The problem was there had been an agreement a long time ago about what should be accomplished for a child. The District about a year ago decided it didn't want to do that anymore so it didn't make a plan....That seemed to be a real disregard for what children need."

The case is now more than 20 years old.

"I have a lot of patience," Lowry says. "I represent a group of children in the District and I am going to represent them as vigoriously as I can....I find it a real waste of resources. This is a small system. It could have been fixed a long time ago."

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.

Gun restrictions passed by District lawmakers in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision are constitutional, a federal trial judge has ruled.

The plaintiffs—which include Dick Heller, the retired security guard whose name tops the landmark case—challenged the constitutionality of city laws implementing a registration process and restricting assault weapons and extended magazines.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina did not buy what they were selling. In a decision handed down today [PDF], Urbina roundly rejected their arguments and granted summary judgment to the city.

"While the Court recognized [in Heller] that the Second Amendment protects a natural right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the home in defense of self, family and property, it cautioned that that right is not unlimited," Urbina wrote.

That said, Urbina added that "no clear directive is contained in the Heller decision itself" as to what standard of legal scrutiny gun laws should be subjected to vis-a-vis the Heller-defined "right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

In the case of gun registration, Urbina found that that part of the law does indeed infringe upon the right to use guns in "defense of hearth and home," but he found that registration furthered a "important governmental interest." Citing deeply from the committee report prepared by the D.C. Council's judiciary panel, Urbina writes that "the Council provided ample evidence of the ways in which the registration requirements will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety."

Plaintiffs' arguments that the Supreme Court meant to legalize assault weapons and large ammo magazines didn't even get that far. "The plaintiffs assert that requiring an individual to pause to reload a firearm after discharging ten rounds of ammunition, like the invalidated trigger lock regulation, 'makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional,'" Urbina writes. "This argument borders on the absurd."

Again, Urbina paid deference to city lawmakers: "The Council held extensive hearings and heard from numerous witnesses on both sides of the gun control divide before determining that assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices constitute weapons that are not in common use, are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and are 'dangerous and unusual,'" Urbina writes. "The court does not see fit to override that decision."

UPDATE, 3:25 P.M.: At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who shepherded the gun bill through the council, reacts: "I'm pleased with the decision. I am pleased that the court recognized recognized the public safety implications of this gun-control debate."

Mendelson says he expects ongoing appeals from the Heller plaintiffs. "Their scheme all along has been to strike down gun control. They would have virtually no gun control, and by virtually, I mean maybe they'd not allow bazookas. That doesn't lead to a safe society, particularly the nation's capital."

In a release, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence also lauded the decision: "Once again, the courts have rejected the gun lobby’s attempt to transform the core right to guns in the home for self-defense into a mandate for their ‘any gun, anywhere’ agenda," says the release.

UPDATE, 5 P.M.: Stephen P. Halbrook, the attorney for the Heller plaintiffs and a veteran of 2nd Amendment cases, says an appeal is "highly likely."

Halbrook takes issue with two aspects of Urbina's decision: First, his decision to apply a standard of review to the new D.C. laws that is "inconsistent with the original Heller decision by the Supreme Court." Second, he says, is that Urbina over-relied on the D.C. Council's committee report and "simply ignored the evidence we presented" challenging its findings.

The case would head to a three-judge panel of the District's federal appeals court. Lurking in the background is the possibility that another Supreme Court case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, could further define the limits of constitutional gun regulation. That case was argued earlier this month, and a decision is almost certain to be handed down by the time Urbina's decision is reviewed.

UPDATE, 5:22 P.M.: Attorney General Peter Nickles offered the following statement: "I am gratified that the Court repeatedly recognized the reasonable and conscientious efforts that the Council and the Mayor made to strike the proper balance between addressing the legitimate rights of firearm owners, and taking every reasonable action to assure the safety of the District’s residents and visitors."

His boss, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, said, "Today’s ruling affirms our efforts to ensure the highest possible standards of safety for District residents."

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.

LL cycled down through the drizzle to the District's federal courthouse this morning to catch a hearing in the Ted Loza bribery case.

Things have been rather quiet in the prosecution of Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham's former chief of staff, and LL was hoping prosecutors might be filing the new charges they've indicated that might be on the way. Alas, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb told LL no such charges would be forthcoming today.

So LL turned around and left, exiting through the courthouse annex. A few steps up 3rd Street NW, lo and behold, was Loza, running late for his 10:15 hearing. It was the first time LL had encountered him since his arrest.

"Life is good," Loza said, dressed in blue suit and red tie.

Conversation quickly moved to the state of his case: "I'm innocent. This is bullshit," he told LL, declining to speak in any further detail.

He proceeded take umbrage at LL's reporting last fall on Loza and his personal and professional dealings. "You didn't do me any justice," he said.

There's always next time, LL replied.

Loza's trial was set today for Oct. 4—bad news, incidentally, for Graham's Democratic challengers who might have enjoyed some pre-election bad press for the incumbent. Only an independent or Republican will be in a position to make political hay out of any revelations that might be aired at trial.

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.

"Pearson wants the appeals court to take notice of a photograph showing [Judge] Huvelle [who dismissed his lawsuit now on appeal] standing with several Superior Court judges, including Anita Josey-Herring, who is a defendant in Pearson’s suit. Pearson included the photo—taken in May at the annual Law Day Dinner Program hosted by the Washington Bar Association—in his opening brief, filed Jan. 21 in the appeals court."

In Pants Lawsuit Guy's view, this photo incriminates both judges. BLT translates his latest filing this way:

"Judge Huvelle’s enthusiastic participation in this smiling, arm-in-arm ‘sisterhood’ photo with defendant Josey-Herring” took place before Huvelle ruled on pending motions in the suit. Pearson said in court papers that Huvelle should have recused from hearing the suit."

”I was just distracted, frankly.”

—Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry, Feb. 10

When it came out in January that Barry had failed to file tax returns for the eighth time in nine years, it was a classic shock-but-no-surprise. After all, the guy's been the Teflon Taxpayer, repeatedly avoiding jail time for his lax attitude toward his 1040. But this time, the flouting was so blatant that everyone expected U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson to finally sink her teeth into the mayor-for-life. But then Barry produced the deus ex machina, revealing that he was ailing from a failed kidney—hence the "distraction." After transplant surgery, Barry was hauled before Robinson, who took a more skeptical view toward prosecutors than the guy who'd failed to pay his taxes. Barry got off with an extension of his probation, but no jail time.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

More from LL's Quotes of 2009

"I don’t understand your approach today, coming in and throwing down the gauntlet."

—U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, Feb. 6

As Peter Nickles pushed out Linda Singer as attorney general in early 2008, he privately agitated on a matter he knew intimately: how many city functions have long been in the hands of federal judges, not the mayor. Nickles, after all, had helped put them there, suing the city up and down during the Barry years. But now—emboldened by evolving opinions on institutional reform litigation and a recent Supreme Court decision—he has a different perspective: It's time to take the agencies back. But is it? Nickles started the effort with the Child and Family Services Agency—a strange pick, considering it was only a year removed from a devastating failure, the Banita Jacks tragedy. His move to take back CFSA earned the above rebuke from federal judge Hogan, the agency's judicial overseer. But that hasn't chastened Nickles; as the year waned, he filed flurries of motions in cases involving special education, mental health, and more. Nickles' project is certainly a work in progress: He appears to be on the cusp of returning control of the District's school transportation system to mayoral control—a win to be sure. But control of CFSA seems to be a pipe dream, and another federal judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle, scolded Nickles in December over his move to dismiss a 33-year-old case involving developmental disability services. And then there's Pershing Park: One set of plaintiffs are seeking a consent decree covering police practices, raising the prospect that Nickles might end his tenure with more court oversight, not less.

More from LL's Quotes of 2009

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.