Connect with us

Local

Metro Weekly publisher settles $1 million lawsuit

Agreement reached over debt, fraud allegation; IRS tax liens remain

Published

on

Metro Weekly — a local gay magazine published by Jansi LLC, which is owned by Randy Shulman — and Post-Newsweek Media, Inc., the company that owns the Washington Post, reached a settlement agreement on April 28 over a lawsuit in which Post-Newsweek alleged that Jansi and Shulman engaged in fraud to avoid paying a Post-Newsweek-owned printing company $85,000 for printing services.

The settlement came six days after a D.C. Superior Court judge presiding over the lawsuit denied a motion for summary judgment by Jansi and Shulman that called for dismissing the fraud charge on grounds that insufficient evidence existed to move forward with the charge.

The settlement agreement also came just over seven months after Judge Ramsey Johnson denied a separate motion by Jansi and Shulman seeking dismissal of the lawsuit.

The terms of the settlement between the two parties could not be found in the court records, indicating the parties chose to keep the terms confidential as is the case with many lawsuits.

Paul S. Thaler, the attorney representing Post-Newsweek, and John W. Karr and William G. McLain, the attorneys representing Jansi and Shulman, did not respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the case and the settlement.

McLain faxed a message to the Blade on May 27 saying Jansi and Shulman would consider responding to a Blade inquiry in writing if such a response was “deemed appropriate” by him but the magazine has a policy of not providing interviews to Blade reporters.

Jansi and Shulman’s attorneys have argued that the lawsuit was without merit, saying the printing debt was incurred by Isosceles Publishing, Inc., the corporation that owned and operated Metro Weekly up until November 2007.

The magazine’s attorneys have argued that a new corporation called Jansi LLC entered into a licensing agreement with Isosceles to publish and operate Metro Weekly beginning in November 2007. They maintain that Jansi, as a separate corporate entity, was not responsible for the debts and liabilities incurred when Metro Weekly was published and operated by Isosceles.

A past due bill of $85,000 from Comprint, a Gaithersburg, Md., company owned by Post-Newsweek, was for printing services incurred by Metro Weekly during the time Isosceles published the magazine, the lawyers have argued.

In its lawsuit filed in July 2010, Post-Newsweek charged Jansi LLC and Shulman, one of Jansi’s two shareholders, with breach of contract, saying they were responsible for the printing debt with Comprint.

The lawsuit also charged Jansi and Shulman with fraud for allegedly entering into the licensing agreement with Isosceles for the alleged purpose of evading debts and liabilities.

“Upon information and belief, Mr. Shulman, Jansi, and Isosceles entered into the 2007 License Agreement with the specific intention to evade Isosceles’ creditors while continuing to publish, and reap revenue from, Metro Weekly,” the lawsuit said. “As a direct result of the defendant’s fraud, plaintiff suffered damages in a sum to be proved at trial but expected to exceed $1,000,000,” the lawsuit said in its request for punitive damages.

‘Nearly $656,000’ in tax liens

In its court brief opposing Jansi and Shulman’s motion to dismiss the fraud charge, Post-Newsweek attorney Thaler cited Shulman’s testimony in a deposition in February in which Shulman acknowledged that he and Isosceles had yet to resolve an outstanding tax obligation with the IRS.

News of Isoceles’ tax liabilities surfaced last year when the Washington Business Journal reported that, “nearly $656,000 in federal and state tax liens have been filed against Isosceles.” Records from the D.C. Recorder of Deeds, which keeps track of tax liens, show that 21 federal, D.C., or unemployment tax liens had been filed against Isosceles Publishing between 1996 and 2010.

Thaler stated in his brief opposing Jansi and Shulman’s motion to dismiss the fraud charge that the tax liens were an indication that the licensing agreement between Isosceles and Jansi was conceived to enable Metro Weekly to evade its debts, a development, he said, that supports Post-Newsweek’s fraud claim.

In Jansi and Shulman’s August 2010 motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, Karr argued that Post-Newsweek’s breach of contract charge concerning the printing debt was invalid because, among other things, Post-Newsweek had brought the same charge in a separate lawsuit in 2009.

A judge ruled in Post-Newsweek’s favor in the earlier lawsuit and ordered Isosceles to pay the printing debt. Isosceles started making payments for the initial printing debt, which exceeded $100,000, for a while before stopping all payments. That prompted Post-Newsweek to file the second lawsuit last July, Thaler said in court papers.

Karr argued in his dismissal motion that the legal concept of “claim preclusion” or “issue preclusion” prohibits “relitigation in a subsequent proceeding of the same claim between the same parties or their privies.”

He also argued that Post-Newsweek failed to provide in its lawsuit the required “elements” indicating that fraud might have taken place to a sufficient degree that a fraud claim could move forward to trial.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Ramsey Johnson rejected those assertions, stating in a Sept. 13, 2010 ruling denying the motion for dismissal of the lawsuit that he was “satisfied that the Plaintiff’s complaint for fraud has been sufficiently pled.”

In its separate motion filed Feb. 23, 2011 seeking dismissal of the fraud charge, Karr reiterated his claim that Post-Newsweek failed to provide sufficient grounds for proving fraud. Karr cited the testimony of Post-Newsweek official Garland Christmas in a deposition in which Christmas stated he was not familiar with the specific details of the lawsuit’s allegation that Metro Weekly and Shulman engaged in fraud through the licensing agreement between Isosceles and Jansi.

Karr argued in his brief that Christmas, the Post-Newsweek official in charge of debt collection for the company, also could not provide information to support Post-Newsweek’s claim that it suffered damages exceeding $1 million due to the non-payment of the printing debt or the licensing deal between Isosceles and Jansi.

In his opposition motion for Post-Newsweek, Thaler said the latest lawsuit was aimed at “asking the court to pierce the corporate veil and find that defendants Randy Shulman and Jansi LLC are the functional ‘alter egos’ of Isosceles and should therefore be held liable for the debt owed to Plaintiff.”

Business funds for personal use

In his opposition motion, Thaler added, “Mr. Shulman further indicated [in a deposition] that the licensing arrangement was the ‘only way’ Metro Weekly could continue to be published in light of the tax lien against Isosceles…Shulman and his business partners frequently commingled funds between Jansi and Isosceles. Shulman has also withdrawn funds from Isosceles and Jansi for personal use.”

Shulman was asked during depositions about various charges made to a company ATM card. “If you go down the purchases apparently using the ATM card you’ll see not just the Pet Smart and Martin’s Wine but a series of purchases at Safeway, RiteAid, Target and Subway as well as something called 14k Restaurant, Starbucks. Is it your testimony that all of these were for Jansi or mistakes by you as you’ve indicated you sometimes do,” a Post-Newsweek lawyer asked.

“Some could be mistakes I would think that – I know for a fact the 14K would be a business – that would be a business – that was probably for coffee for a business meeting,” Shulman replied.

In response to questions about purchases with the Jansi card made at other places, such as the Virginia Market convenience store near his home, Shulman said:

“ … I’m looking this over and I’m looking at the cluster of time and it’s very likely at this time that, aside from the thing that I was – quite honestly, I probably had absolutely no money in my own personal account. I was actually utilizing Jansi funds that were there at the time to help support me.”

“So you used the ATM for Jansi,” the lawyer replied.

“I did use the ATM for Jansi to make my purchases during that period.”

In his April 22 ruling denying Jansi and Shulman’s summary judgment motion to dismiss the fraud charge, Judge Johnson stated, “The court has already concluded that Plaintiff’s fraud claim was sufficiently pled when it denied Defendants’ Motion for Failure to State a Claim on Sept. 13, 2010.  With regard to the instant motion, the Court does not find that the issue of fraud, at least in this case, lends itself to summary judgment.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case

Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge

Published

on

Sean Charles Dunn was found not guilty on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10. 

Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets. 

Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers  standing in front of the shop.

 Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.

 “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.

 “And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”

The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.

Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured. 

Prosecutors  with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1. 

Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom. 

Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various  provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.

The dispute over the intricacies of  the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.

Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called  “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.

DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.

“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.

Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.

Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident. 

“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it  was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.” 

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.

“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Democrats hold leads in almost every race of Annapolis municipal election

Jared Littmann ahead in mayor’s race.

Published

on

Preliminary election results from Tuesday show Democrats likely will remain in control of Annapolis City Hall. Jared Littmann thanks his wife, Marlene Niefeld, as he addresses supporters after polls closed Tuesday night. (Photo by Rick Hutzell for the Baltimore Banner)

By CODY BOTELER | The Democratic candidates in the Annapolis election held early leads in the races for mayor and nearly every city council seat, according to unofficial results released on election night.

Jared Littmann, a former alderman and the owner of K&B Ace Hardware, did not go so far as to declare victory in his race to be the next mayor of Annapolis, but said he’s optimistic that the mail-in ballots to be counted later this week will support his lead.

Littmannn said November and December will “fly by” as he plans to meet with the city department heads and chiefs to “pepper them with questions.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Democrats increase majority in Va. House of Delegates

Tuesday was Election Day in state.

Published

on

Virginia Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democrats on Tuesday increased their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

The Associated Press notes the party now has 61 seats in the chamber. Democrats before Election Day had a 51-48 majority in the House.

All six openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual candidates — state Dels. Rozia Henson (D-Prince William County), Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County), Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), Marcia Price (D-Newport News), Adele McClure (D-Arlington County), and Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) — won re-election.

Lindsey Dougherty, a bisexual Democrat, defeated state Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield County) in House District 75 that includes portions of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties. (Attorney General-elect Jay Jones in 2022 texted Coyner about a scenario in which he shot former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican.)

Other notable election results include Democrat John McAuliff defeating state Del. Geary Higgins (R-Loudoun County) in House District 30. Former state Del. Elizabeth Guzmán beat state Del. Ian Lovejoy (R-Prince William County) in House District 22.

Democrats increased their majority in the House on the same night they won all three statewide offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Narissa Rahaman is the executive director of Equality Virginia Advocates, the advocacy branch of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, last week noted the election results will determine the future of LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights in the state.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.

The General Assembly earlier this year approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment that defines marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. The resolution must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.

Shreya Jyotishi contributed to this article.

Continue Reading

Popular