Connect with us

District of Columbia

D.C. judge orders Casa Ruby placed under temporary receivership

Wanda Alston Foundation, Safe Haven being considered to take over

Published

on

Ruby Corado participated in Thursday’s hearing remotely. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A D.C. Superior Court judge on Thursday, Aug. 11, approved a request by the Office of the D.C. Attorney General to place D.C.’s LGBTQ community services center Casa Ruby under temporary receivership to stabilize its finances and determine whether it can resume operating after it shut down its programs last month.

Among those who spoke at the virtual hearing was Casa Ruby founder and former executive director Ruby Corado, who said she did not oppose a limited receivership order. Corado spoke through an audio connection rather than appearing on video as did the judge and representatives of the Attorney General’s Office.  

Also appearing on video for the hearing were representatives of two LGBTQ organizations that the AG’s office has named as candidates to become the Casa Ruby receiver – the D.C.-based Wanda Alston Foundation and the Baltimore-based Safe Haven, which has announced plans to open a facility in D.C.

In response to a request by Adam Gitlin, chief of the AG office’s Public Integrity Section, Judge Danya A. Dayson agreed to give the AG’s office one more day to decide which of the two groups would be named as the Casa Ruby receiver. After listening to testimony by June Crenshaw, the Alston Foundation executive director, and Iya Dammons, Safe Haven’s founder and executive director, Dayson said either of the two groups would be acceptable to her as the receiver.

The judge directed the AG’s office to submit a proposed order naming the receiver by the end of the business day on Friday, Aug. 12.

Dayson’s ruling approving a receivership for Casa Ruby came eight days after she approved a separate request by the D.C. AG’s office calling for a temporary restraining order to freeze all bank accounts and PayPal accounts held by Casa Ruby.

The call for both the restraining order and the receivership were introduced in court by the AG’s office on Aug. 1 in an emergency motion asserting that both Casa Ruby and Corado had violated the city’s Nonprofit Corporations Act in connection with their financial dealings.

“Casa Ruby’s operations suggest clear patterns of gross mismanagement and poor oversight of its programs and finances,” D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said in a statement at the time the motion was filed in court. “Instead of fulfilling its important mission of providing transitional housing and support to LGBTQ+ youth, Casa Ruby diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars of District grants and charitable donations from their intended purpose,” Racine said.

He was referring to allegations in the AG office’s civil court filing that Corado used funds from the D.C. Casa Ruby to open a Casa Ruby LGBTQ shelter in El Salvador without any documented authorization from the Casa Ruby board of directors, which the court filings say rarely met and failed to provide oversight over Corado or Casa Ruby.

During the Aug. 11 virtual court hearing, Corado disputed the allegations, saying among other things, that claims that she was not in communication with the Casa Ruby board was a “misconception.”

Corado did not say in her remarks at the virtual court hearing where she is currently residing. Members of the Casa Ruby staff have said Corado had been in Salvador for most of the time this year and in recent weeks the staff was unable to reach her to discuss Casa Ruby related business. Staff members also reported that they had not been paid for over a month and a financial crisis prevented them from continuing any of Casa Ruby’s remaining programs.

In her comments at the Aug. 11 hearing, Corado said the funding crisis was caused by D.C. government agencies that she said failed to reimburse Casa Ruby close to $150,000 in grant funds that she said the city was committed to pay for services that Casa Ruby had already performed.

But email correspondence between officials with the D.C. Department of Human Services, which has provided most of the Casa Ruby grant funding, and Casa Ruby officials other than Corado, indicates the funding was withheld because Casa Ruby failed to comply with various grant requirements, including not having a functioning board of directors. One or more of the employees released the correspondence to the media.

“I believe that when the facts, as someone stated earlier, stop being allegations and actually become facts that you, Your Honor, will have an opportunity to understand the ramification of the allegations,” Corado said during the hearing. “There are people, including myself, who have received death threats over things that are not true,” she told the judge.

Gitlin of the AG’s office, while not specifically responding to Corado’s allegations, said his office has met the legal requirement needed to have Casa Ruby placed under receivership.

“In short, we do have reason to believe that Casa Ruby currently continues to be out of compliance with the Nonprofit Corporations Act, continues to be unable to meet its obligations, and its assets are in serious question,” he told the judge. “And so, we believe the requirements for the receivership statute have been met.”

He said the two groups under consideration to become the receiver are “both nonprofits in good standing with experience doing many of the services that Casa Ruby performed.” He added, “Both have pledged that even if they are not appointed receiver, they are happy to help because they care about the community that needs to be served.”

He concluded by saying the AG’s office would like whichever group is chosen as the receiver to “first assess the assets and liabilities that are outstanding for Casa Ruby, figure out whether a board can be reconstituted, and assess otherwise whether there is a path forward for the organizations.” Gitlin said the other option that the receiver should consider is whether its recommendation should be for “an orderly wind down in the way a nonprofit normally would” to end its operations.

Judge Dayson ordered that whichever group is chosen to be the receiver, which she was to approve the following day on Aug. 12, will be required to submit a report to the court on Sept. 13, 2022, on the status of its work. She scheduled a status hearing on the case for Sept. 29 at which time she directed Corado to arrange to have an attorney representing her.  

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

District of Columbia

Trial begins for man charged with throwing sandwich at federal agent

Jury views video of incident that went viral on social media

Published

on

Posters depicting Sean Charles Dunn throwing a sandwich quickly appeared around the city last summer. (Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Prosecutors showed jurors a video of Sean Charles Dunn throwing a sub sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the bustling intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10 of this year on the opening day of Dunn’s trial that has drawn national attention.

According to a knowledgeable source, Dunn threw the sandwich at the agent after shouting obscenities at him and other federal law enforcement officers who were stationed at that location after he was refused admission to the nearby gay bar Bunker for being too intoxicated.

Charging documents and reports by witnesses show that Dunn expressed outrage that the federal officers were stationed there and at other locations in D.C. under orders from President Donald Trump  to help curtail crime in the city.

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,” a criminal complaint states, “pointed 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 adds, “Dunn continued his conduct for several minutes before crossing the street and continuing to yell obscenities at V-1. At approximately 11:06 p.m. Dunn approached V-1 and threw a sandwich at him, striking V-1 in the chest.”

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.”

At the opening day of testimony at the trial on Tuesday, Nov. 4, V-1, who was identified as Customs and Border Patrol Agent Gregory Lairmore, testified as the first government witness. Also testifying was Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who said she was present at the scene and saw Dunn throw the sandwich at Lairmore.

The position taken by Dunn’s defense attorneys is outlined in a 24-page memorandum in support of a motion filed on Oct. 15 calling for the dismissal of the case, which was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols.

“This prosecution is a blatant abuse of power,” the defense memo states. “The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical – were it not for the unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn.”

It adds, “Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection {CBP} officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it.” 

The trial was scheduled to resume at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 5.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. mayor announces use of local funds for SNAP food aid

Md., Va. arrange for similar local replacement of federal money

Published

on

Mayor Muriel Bowser has arranged for at least $129 million in local D.C. funds to be used for SNAP. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Oct. 30 that she has arranged for at least $129 million in local D.C funds to be used to support as many as 141,000 D.C. residents in need who depend on the federal food assistance programs known as SNAP and WIC whose funding will be cut off beginning Nov. 1 due to the federal shutdown.

SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Program, provide food related services for 10 million or more people in need nationwide.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, and Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer also announced similar plans to provide emergency state funds to replace the federal funds cut off beginning Nov. 1 for the two food programs. 

Similar to Bowser, Moore and Youngkin said their replacement funds at this time would only last for the month of November. Each said they were hopeful that Congress would end the shutdown before the end of November.

“We know that SNAP and WIC play a critical role in keeping thousands of Washingtonians and millions of Americans put food on the table each month,” Bowser said in a statement. “We were hopeful it wouldn’t come to this – and we will need the federal government to reopen as soon as possible – but for right now, we’re moving forward to ensure we take care of D.C. residents in November,” she said.

The mayor’s statement says about 85,000 D.C. households, consisting of 141,000 individuals, receive SNAP support each month, with an average monthly allocation of $314. It says more than 12,500 city residents in 8,300 households benefit from the WIC program.  

A spokesperson for the D.C. Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs couldn’t immediately be reached to determine whether the city has an estimated count of how many LGBTQ residents receive support from the SNAP and SIC programs. 

Continue Reading

Popular