Dorothy Brizill, DCWatchSupplement to complaint to the Office of Campaign Finance onviolations of the prohibition against a lobbyist giving a gift to an electedofficial, or an official receiving a giftNovember 17, 2003

DCWatch

1327 Girard Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009-4915

202-234-6982, fax 202-232-1215

http://www.onlinesportsbooks.us.com

November 17, 2003

Ms. Cecily Collier-Montgomery

Office of Campaign Finance

2000 14th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Dear Ms. Collier-Montgomery:

This letter supplements my formal complaint of November 7, 2009, on a
violation of District of Columbia laws and regulations regarding election
campaigns, lobbying, and conflict of interest by Mayor Anthony Williams
and attorney/lobbyist Vincent Mark Policy.

Supplementary Information

Attachment A: The complaint filed on June 25, 2002, in the District
of Columbia Superior Court in the case of Thomas Lindenfeld v. Anthony
Williams and the Committee to Re-Elect Tony Williams (CA No. 02-0005119)

Attachment B: Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel dated
February 13, 2003. (This was also included as Attachment A in the
November 7, 2003, complaint, but this copy includes the Certificate of
Service page that includes the date of the Notice.)

Attachment C: Defendant Anthony Williams’ Motion to Compel Discovery
and For An Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Anthony Williams’ Motion to
Compel Discovery and For An Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (see
paragraph 4 of motion).

Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Anthony
Williams’ Motion to Compel Discovery (see paragraph 2 of motion).

Attachment D: Summary of Registered Lobbyists Information, Office of
Campaign Finance, DC Board of Elections and Ethics. (Two pages from this
summary were included in the complaint of November 7, 2003, as
Attachment C; this copy includes the information that identifies its
source; see pages 2 and 9.)

Attachment E: Examples of lobbying and legal activities by Vincent
Mark Policy and/or the law firm of Greenstein, Delorme and Luchs.

Attachment F: Office of Campaign Finance, Interpretative Opinion
00-06 (October 2, 2000).

Please let me know if there is any further information or assistance
that I can provide.

Sincerely yours,

Dorothy A. Brizill

cc: Mr. Benjamin Wilson, Chairman, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

Ms. Alice Miller, Executive Director, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

Mr. Kenneth McGhie, General Counsel, D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics

Back to top of page

Attachment A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

THOMAS LINDENFELD, 6001 Nebraska Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015, Plaintiff,
v. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, 2475 Virginia Ave., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20027 and COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT TONY WILLIAMS, 3233 Livingston
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015, Defendants

CA. No. 02-0005119

COMPLAINT

(Breach of Contract)

I. JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is founded on D.C. Code
Annotated, Title 11, section 11-921.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Thomas Lindenfeld ("Lindenfeld")
is, and at all relevant times has been an individual citizen and
resident of the District of Columbia.

3. Plaintiff Lindenfeld Communications, LLC (Lindenfeld
Communications") is a District

of Columbia Limited Liability Company of which plaintiff
Lindenfeld is, and at all relevant times has been, the sole member. At
all relevant times, Lindenfeld Communications was in the business of
providing political consulting services.

4. Defendant Anthony Williams ("Williams") is
the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

5. Defendant Committee to Re-Elect Tony Williams
("Re-election Committee") is the principal campaign committee
of defendant Williams, organized and existing pursuant to D.C. Code
Section 1-1412, for the campaign of Williams to seek the Democratic
nomination for Mayor of the District of Columbia in the primary election
to be held in 2002.

III. FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS

6. In or about December 1999, defendant Williams and his
then-Chief of Staff, Abdusalam Omer, acting as agent for and on behalf
of defendant Williams, orally offered to hire Lindenfeld as a political
consultant and advisor to defendant Williams.

7. The terms of the oral offer described in paragraph 6
were that plaintiff Lindenfeld, during a two-year term, consisting of
the calendar years 2000 and 2001, would be responsible for coordinating
communications and political strategy with the operations of the office
of the Mayor; for attending planning meetings with defendant Williams
and his senior staff; for advising and assisting defendant Williams in
responding to crisis situations, for providing defendant Williams and
his staff assistance in message formulation and speech writing; for undertaking political operations on behalf of defendant
Williams with respect to ballot initiatives and referenda, and for
planning and implementing activities of the re-election campaign,
including fundraising.

8. The terms of the oral offer described in paragraph 6
were further that, in consideration of services to be rendered by
plaintiff Lindenfeld to defendant Williams as set forth in paragraph 7,
plaintiff Lindenfeld would be paid one hundred fifty thousand dollars
($150,000) a year, in twelve equal monthly installments each year, of
$12,500 per month.

9. Plaintiff Lindenfeld orally accepted the offer
described in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 hereof, on the terms and conditions
set forth in said offer.

10. Subsequent to the offer and acceptance described in
paragraphs 6 through 9 hereof, plaintiff Lindenfeld and defendant
Williams agreed that plaintiff Lindenfeld would be paid for his services
by defendant Williams’ re-election committee, which was not established
until approximately April 2000; and that payment would be deferred until
after such re-election committee had raised funds at its first
fundraising event scheduled for June 2000.

11. Defendant Re-election Committee was established in or
about April 2000. Defendant Williams delegated his obligations and
assigned his rights, under the agreement described in paragraphs 6
through 9 hereof, to defendant Re-election Committee.

12. During the months of January 2000 through June 2000,
inclusive, plaintiff Lindenfeld fully performed all of the services that
he was obligated to perform for defendant Williams under and in
accordance with the agreement described in paragraphs 6 through 9
hereof. During this period, defendant Williams, on behalf of himself and
the Re-election Committee, repeatedly and regularly requested plaintiff
Lindenfeld to perform such services for defendant Williams and defendant
Re-election Committee.

13. The first fundraising event for defendant Williams’
re-election campaign took place on or about June 15, 2000.

14. In accordance with the terms of the agreement between
plaintiff Lindenfeld and defendant Williams, plaintiff Lindenfeld
requested payment for the first six months of 2000, in the amount of
seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) following the June 2000
fundraiser.

15. Defendants Williams and Re-election Committee have
failed and refused to pay the amount due and owing to plaintiff
Lindenfeld under the agreement between plaintiff Lindenfeld and
defendant Williams.

16. Defendant Williams, his Chief of Staff and other
staff, acting as agents for and on behalf of defendant Williams, have
repeatedly admitted and acknowledged that defendants Williams and
Re-election Committee owe plaintiff Lindenfeld seventy-five thousand
dollars ($75,000) for services rendered by plaintiff Lindenfeld to
defendants.

17. Defendants Williams and Re-election Committee have
repeatedly failed and refused to pay the amount due and owing to
plaintiff Lindenfeld under the agreement between plaintiff Lindenfeld
and defendant Williams.

COUNT I

18. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 2 through 17 as if
fully set forth herein.

19. The agreement described in paragraphs 6 through 9
hereof was an express oral contract between plaintiff Lindenfeld and
defendant Williams, binding on defendant Williams and enforceable in
accordance with its terms.

20. Some or all of defendant Williams’ obligations under
said contract may have been delegated to defendant Re-election
Committee.

21. Plaintiff Lindenfeld never agreed to such delegation.
Defendant Williams remains liable for all of his obligations under the
express oral contract.

22. By failing and refusing to pay the amounts due to
plaintiff Lindenfeld which they are obligated to pay under the express
oral contract, defendants have materially breached the contract.

23. As a result of such breach, plaintiff Lindenfeld has
been injured in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants
in the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, plus prejudgment interest,
costs, attorney’s fees, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

COUNT II

24. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 2 through 17, and 20 and 21, as if
fully set forth herein.

25. By their conduct, plaintiff Lindenfeld and defendant Williams
entered into a contract implied in fact on the terms set forth and described in
paragraphs 6 through 9 hereof. 

26. By refusing and failing to pay the amounts due to
plaintiff Lindenfeld for services rendered under and in accordance with the terms of such
contract, defendants have materially breached the contract.

27. As a result of such breach, plaintiff Lindenfeld has
been injured in the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants
in the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, plus prejudgment interest,
costs, attorney’s fees, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherri L. Wyatt

D.C. Bar No. 390314 

Sherri L. Wyatt, PLLC 

1825 I Street,
N. W. Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 429-2009

Back to top of page

Attachment B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

THOMAS LINDENFELD, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 02CA005119

Judge Jeanette J. Clark  

Calendar
14

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

TO THE CLERK:

Please take notice that counsel of record, Robert M.
Krasne and Margaret A. Keeley of Williams & Connolly LLP are hereby
withdrawing as counsel to defendant Anthony A. Williams
("Williams") in the above-captioned matter, and Vincent Mark
J. Policy of Greenstein DeLorme & Luchs, P.C. is entering his
appearance as counsel’ of record for Anthony A. Williams. Please copy
Mr. Policy at 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C., (202)
452-1400 with any pleadings, orders, or other documents issued by the
Court in the above-captioned case.

We also enclose a proposed Order for the Court permitting
this substitution of counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

GREENSTEIN DeLORME & LUCHS, P.C. 

By:

Vincent Mark Policy

1620 L. Street, N.W. Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Phone: (202) 452-1400 Fax: (202)
452-1410

WILLIAMS &
CONNOLLY LLP

By: 

Robert M. Krasne
(375750) 

Margaret A. Keeley (454962)

725 Twelfth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone:
(202) 434-5000 Fax: (202) 434-5029

CLIENT:

Anthony A. Williams

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 13, 2003, I caused true and correct
copies of the foregoing Defendant Anthony A. Williams’ Notice of
Appearance and Substitution of Counsel to be served by first class mail
upon: 

Sherri L. Wyatt

1825 I St., N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 429-2009

Douglas J. Patton

Holland & Knight LLP

2099 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Suite 100

Washington, D.C. 20006-6801

Phone: (202) 955-3000

Fax: (202) 955-5564

Vincent Mark J. Policy

Back to top of page

Attachment C

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action No. 02CA005119 

Judge
Jeanette J. Clark

Calendar 14

Next Event: Discovery Closed 

October 15, 2003 

DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

Defendant Anthony Williams, by counsel and pursuant to
Rule 37(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves
that this Court compel the Plaintiff, Thomas Lindenfeld, to comply with
the discovery requests specified in the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities attached hereto. The Plaintiff has failed for months to
produce requested documents, which are necessary for Defendant Williams
to commence depositions (including that of Plaintiff). With the
discovery deadline of October 15, 2003 it is critical that these
documents be produced now.

Because Plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery is
not justified, the Court should also enter an award of attorneys’ fees.
and expenses. In support of its Motion, Defendant Williams relies upon
the following points and authorities:

1. D.C.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 34;

2. D.C.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 37; and

3. The accompanying Memorandum of Points
and Authorities.

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SECURE DISCOVERY AND OBTAIN CONSENT

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that despite repeated good faith
attempts to obtain outstanding discovery responses from Plaintiff and
its counsel, Plaintiff has failed to produce documents responsive to
Williams’ requests for production. These attempts are specifically set
forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I made diligent efforts to obtain
the discovery requested and to obtain consent pursuant to Super.Ct.Civ.R.
12-I(a). Despite these and other diligent efforts, the discovery has not
been provided and consent was not obtained.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE OF COURTESY COPY TO CHAMBERS

I HEREBY CERTIFY that true copies of the foregoing
Defendant Anthony Williams’ Motion to Compel and For An Award of
Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support thereof, and a Proposed Order were hand-delivered
this 5th day of September 2003 to:

Sherri L. Wyatt, Esq.

Sherri L. Wyatt, PLLC

1017 12th Street, N.W.

Suite 300

Washington, D. C. 20005

Counsel for Plaintiff

Paul J. Kiernan, Esq.

Damien G. Stewart, Esq. Holland and Knight, LLP

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 100

Washington, D.C. 20006

Counsel for The Committee to Re-Elect Tony Williams

In addition, pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(e) and
5(I), counsel has caused a courtesy copy of this Motion to be placed in
the in-house mailbox to be delivered to the chambers of Judge Jeanette
J. Clark.

Vincent Mark J. Policy

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action No. 02CA005119 

Judge
Jeanette J. Clark

Calendar 14

Next Event: Discovery Closed 

October 15, 2003 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

Defendant Anthony Williams has moved to compel discovery
pursuant to D.C.Super.Ct.Civ.R.37
due to failure for months of the Plaintiff, Thomas Lindenfeld, to make
documents available for review and copying that are essential to the
taking of depositions and the defense of this case. Despite repeated
demands from Williams, Plaintiff has refused to comply with discovery.
In further support of its motion, Williams states as follows:

I.   EFFORTS MADE TO OBTAIN THE
OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY

Defendants (including Williams) sent to Plaintiff
"Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents" almost seven
months ago, on February 10, 2003. Despite repeated efforts on the part
of Williams, Plaintiff has yet to produce any documents.¹ It
was not. until August 1, 2003 that Plaintiff finally responded to the document requests with "Plaintiff’s Responses to
Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents". This document is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and sets forth both the document requests
and Plaintiff’s responses. All responses are inadequate for the simple
fact that, as of the date of ‘this Motion to Compel, Plaintiff has not
produced a single document.

By correspondence sent on August 27, 2003 (attached
hereto as Exhibit B) from Vincent Mark J. Policy (counsel for Defendant
Williams) to Sherri Wyatt (counsel for Plaintiff), Defendant Williams
made clear to Plaintiff the fact that Plaintiff had not produced any
documents, and asked Plaintiff to comply with the document requests. No
documents were produced.

Additionally, counsel for Defendant Williams has called
counsel for Plaintiff by telephone on two separate occasions in an
effort to have Plaintiff produce the requested documents. Those
telephone calls occurred on August 28, 2003, at which time Ms. Wyatt
informed Mr. Policy that Plaintiff would comply with discovery (which he
did not), and on September 2, 2003, at which time counsel for Defendant
left a voicemail with counsel for Plaintiff, again requesting documents.
To date, Plaintiff has yet to produce any documents.

II. ARGUMENT

All of the documents sought in this Motion are relevant
to the subject matter of this action under Rule 26 and its production
should be compelled under Rule 37. Information is discoverable if
"there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of this action."

Roberts-Douglas v. Meares, 624 A.2d 405, 415 (D.C. 1992). In fact, with
the exception of one Request and then only as to documents which may be
covered by the attorney-client privilege, Plaintiff agrees in
"Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of
Documents" to produce all other documents requested. Therefore,
there is no dispute whether the requested documents are relevant. Yet,
no documents have been produced.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons;-Defendant Williams requests
that this Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce the
documents requested in Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents.
Williams also requests that this Court award Defendant Williams the
reasonable attorneys’ fees that he has and will incur in pursuing this
Motion, given that Plaintiff has delayed production of concededly
relevant documents without any defense or justification. The Court
should also allow Williams to conduct follow-up discovery after receipt
of the additional discovery materials from the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted, 

GREENSTEIN DELORME & LUCHS,
P.C.

Dated: September 5, 2003

Vincent Mark J. Policy #204701 

1620 L Street, N.W., Suite
900 

Washington, D.C. 20036-5605 

(202) 452-1400

Counsel for Defendant Anthony Williams

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION 

Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action No. 5119-02

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel and
hereby opposes Defendant Anthony Williams’ Motion to Compel Discovery
and For an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses. As grounds in support
of his opposition, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. On September 10, 2003 Plaintiff,
caused to be delivered to counsel for Defendant Williams, by messenger,
a box containing documents in response to his Request for Production of
Documents. Said documents represented the existence of a contract
between Plaintiff and Defendant Williams by exhibiting Plaintiffs
involvement with Defendant Williams’ re-election campaign, Plaintiffs
personal notes taken at numerous meetings with Defendant Williams’ and
other Committee-to Re-elect Tony Williams staff members, Plaintiffs
drafts of speeches he prepared for Defendant Williams and all other
documents in his possession relating to the existence of a contract for
services between himself and Defendant Williams (See Attachment A).

2. Plaintiff duly caused a copy of the
Certificate Regarding Discovery to be filed with this Honorable Court on
September 10, 2003 (See Attachment B).

3. Although Defendant Williams, by
letter from his counsel dated September 11, 2003 indicated that the
production is "clearly inadequate" because "none of the
documents regarding the alleged contract were produced", Plaintiff
contends that the documents produced are adequate and responsive to
Defendant’s request, and that all other such documentation relating to
the existence of a contract and the authority under which he
participated in Defendant Williams’ re-election campaign, the rationale
behind Plaintiff being placed on certain lists, and other correspondence
representing the instances where Plaintiff was called upon to render his
expert advice, and causing Plaintiff to be the recipient of clearly
privileged information regarding Defendant Williams, was made a part of
the initial Complaint in this matter. (See Attachment C).

4. Finally, Defendant Williams requests
attorney’s fees and cost in this matter when there has been indication
to both Plaintiff and his counsel that all services are being provided
on a pro bono basis to Defendant Williams.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court consider Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Discovery to be moot, and thus, deny said Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherri L. Wyatt #’390314 

1017 12th Street, N. W. 

Suite
300

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 216-9850 

(202) 216-9360
(fax)

Dated: September 15, 2003

Thomas Lindenfeld, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Williams, et al.,
Defendants

Civil Action No. 02CA005119 

Judge
Jeanette J. Clark

Calendar 14

Next Event: Witness List Due, 

October 8, 2003. 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

DEFENDANT ANTHONY WILLIAMS, by undersigned counsel,
herein responds to one point in the September 15, 2003 Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendant Anthony Williams’ Motion to Compel Discovery and
for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.

In paragraph 4 of the opposition, the Plaintiff opposes
the Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs on the Motion
because "… there has been indication to both Plaintiff and his
counsel that all services are being provided on a pro bono basis to
Defendant Williams". This statement was made by undersigned counsel
to Plaintiff and his counsel at the Mediation Session. As the Court well
knows, all statements made at the Mediation Session are to be held
confidential and are not to be used in court pleadings, and the Plaintiff
and its counsel signed a confidentiality agreement to that effect. The
statement quoted above in the Plaintiff’s Opposition is a blatant and
self-serving breach of that confidentiality
agreement, which this Court should not condone. Otherwise, Mediation will
become useless because the free and frank exchange that occurs under the
cloak of confidentiality will be nullified.

Respectfully submitted,

Vincent Mark J. Policy

D.C. Bar No. 20 01

Greenstein Delorme & Luchs, P.C.

1620 L Street, N.W.

Suite 900 Washington, D.C. (202) 452-1400

Attorney for Defendant Anthony Williams

Dated: September 23, 2003

Back to top of page

Attachment D

OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS

SUMMARY OF REGISTERED LOBBYISTS INFORMATION

The Director of Campaign Finance herewith publishes a
summary of registered lobbyists’ information submitted to the Office of
Campaign Finance on or before August 15, 2003 by persons registered as
lobbyists with the Director, pursuant to the District of Columbia
Campaign Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest Act of 1974, as
amended, D.C. Official Code § 1-1105.04 (2001 Edition).

A person is required to register as a lobbyist with the
Director of Campaign Finance on or before January 15th each year, or not
later than 15 days after becoming a lobbyist, if such person receives
compensation or expends funds in an amount of $250 or more in any three
(3) consecutive calendar month period for communicating directly with
any official in the legislative or executive branch of the District of
Columbia government with the purpose of influencing any legislative
action or an administrative decision. D.C. Official Code §§ 1-1105.02
and 1-1105.04(a).

If information, pertaining to a lobbyist registered with
the Office of Campaign Finance, is not contained herein and/or if a
person requires additional information regarding District of Columbia
lobbying statutes, please contact the Office of Campaign Finance, at
2000-14th Street, N.W., Suite 420, Washington, D.C., 20009 or telephone
at (202) 671-0547.

[Table edited to relevant entries]