A Nickle for Your ThoughtsDear Paymasters: Councilmember Mary Cheh has said that Attorney General Peter Nickles should resign, and Councilmember Phil Mendelson has said that he may open a city council investigation into the Attorney General’s Office. The Washington Post and The Washington Times haven’t written about it, and the Washington Examiner has only one sentence referring to it at the end of an article, http://tinyurl.com/mbk8xg. However, you can read about it on DCist (http://dcist.com/2009/08/cheh_ag_nickles_should_resign.php), the City Paper’s City Blog (http://tinyurl.com/mpmv89), and in a Legal Times article reprinted on the Partnership for Civil Justice web site (http://www.justiceonline.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5383&news_iv_ctrl=1021). Here is the case, and why the city council is obligated to investigate the Attorney General. In 2002, the Metropolitan Police Department, led by former Police Chief Charles Ramsey and following a strategy devised by current Police Chief Cathy Lanier, rounded up protesters against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They violated the protesters’ Constitutional rights badly, and groups of protesters sued both the federal and city governments, in the cases of Chang v. US and Barham v. DC, which have been joined and are still being heard by Judge Emmet Sullivan in District Court. In the course of the case, the Attorney General’s office has lost or destroyed some critical evidence and has withheld other evidence from the plaintiffs. In a hearing on July 29, Judge Sullivan brought the matter to a head, and the transcript of that hearing reflects his anger at the misbehavior of the Attorney General’s office (http://dcwatch.com/govern/occ090729.htm, or a PDF copy at http://tinyurl.com/n5l55q). He said, “I want Mr. Nickles himself, under penalty of perjury, to address all of those shortcomings, the reasons for those shortcomings and his plan that he’s going to personally put in place for completion of all discovery in this case and for whatever his proposal is that will give not only this court but the parties and the citizens of the District of Columbia the confidence that they need to have that all discoverable material has been produced to Plaintiffs. That’s the burden on Mr. Nickles himself to do that, and I want that done no later than two weeks from today. I’m not going to extend the time for that.” In the hearing, Judge Sullivan gave a mandate to Mayor Fenty to settle the case: “The mayor needs to get involved and tell his city government to settle this case. That’s what should happen. That’s what should happen. It starts at the top, because this is about the city government and about its abysmal involvement in this case. And that’s a very appropriate word, abysmal. This is outrageous. It’s seven years after this case was commenced, and notwithstanding numerous court orders, the government is still locating discoverable information that has been there for seven years in the government’s files. I don’t know what else I can do other than to impose the significant sanctions and awards of counsel fees that I will do. I’m going to give the plaintiff discovery — the additional discovery they want and the city is going to pay every penny of what their cost will be for the additional discovery. I can tell you that’s one sanction I’m going to impose today. Whatever the reasonable expenses are for the additional discovery that plaintiffs want, the city is going the pay for it, every penny. So what does that mean? That means six more months of delay? Plaintiffs have been delayed for seven years now, notwithstanding a — notwithstanding numerous resolutions of significant issues in this court, all of which have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This case has been crying out for settlement for a long time. Maybe we’re at the posture now where the city government will seriously consider settlement of all these cases, of all these claims on terms that are reasonable; otherwise, this litigation is going to go on and I have every reason to believe there’ll be additional sanctions imposed and additional awards of attorney’s fees because I don’t have any comfort whatsoever that all discoverable material has been produced.” Judge Sullivan also gave a mandate to the city council: “The other question I want to raise now is why there haven’t been any investigations by the city government into any of this. Why hasn’t the city council looked into any of these very serious problems that have been raised, appropriately so, time and time and time again by the plaintiffs? There has been no oversight by anyone. The Attorney General’s office is in charge of this. No one has sought to intervene, to investigate, to ask questions why these discovery problems have existed for so long. I submit the city council has an obligation, the mayor’s office has an obligation to the citizens of the District of Columbia, if no one else, to ensure that its Office of Attorney General is functioning at the level of professionalism that the citizens of DC are entitled to. And it’s shocking that no one has attempted to exercise any oversight responsibility into the many serious shortcomings of the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. And quite frankly, I’m not going to tolerate it. Now, if I have to get involved and appoint someone to start investigating, I’ll do it. I would prefer not to. I will leave it up to the city to exercise appropriate oversight responsibility, but this nonsense is going to stop and it’s going to stop soon.” What is Attorney General Nickles’ reaction to this? In the Legal Times article, Nickles takes issue with the judge’s statement about the government’s handling of the case raising issues of whether citizens can trust their government: “I don’t think that was a statement that should have been made. That doesn’t do anyone any good.” He dismisses the importance of the missing or destroyed evidence: “There are probably missing documents. When you deal with tens of thousand of documents, that happens.” If Mr. Nickles thinks that attitude will help his case, he’s mistaken. Judge Sullivan warned the attorney representing the city at the hearing that, “. . . I will, as appropriate, give Plaintiffs an opportunity to ask for whatever additional sanctions are appropriate, and I will strongly impress upon them that they should be as innovative as they possibly can within the realm of reason to suggest to the Court appropriate sanctions, because this type of conduct by the city’s attorney’s office is unacceptable, it will not be tolerated and that office is going to pay the price. But ultimately, the citizens of the District of Columbia lose because it comes out of their pocket, and they shouldn’t have to pay for these types of shenanigans, and again, that’s putting it mildly.” We’re paying the price; it’s time for us to get an accounting. Must read: “How We Can Hold the DC Council Accountable,” by Kathy Patterson, in today’s Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/01/AR2009080101902.html. Gary Imhoff and Dorothy Brizill ############### Bogus Parking Tickets and the New Civil War
|
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)