Connect with us

District of Columbia

Casa Ruby receiver appeals decision dismissing lawsuit against former board

Case against founder Ruby Corado continues

Published

on

The lawsuit names Casa Ruby founder and former executive director Ruby Corado as a defendant. (Blade file photo by Ernesto Valle)

The Wanda Alston Foundation, which assumed control over the operations of the D.C. LGBTQ community services group Casa Ruby in August 2022 under a court appointed receivership role, last week filed papers before the D.C. Court of Appeals contesting a May 1, 2023, decision by a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissing a lawsuit against seven of the eight former Casa Ruby board members who the Alston Foundation named as defendants.  

The lawsuit, which the Alston Foundation filed Dec. 23, 2022,  accuses all eight former Casa Ruby board members of violating D.C.’s nonprofit corporation law by failing to  “hold regular meetings and/or maintain official records – thereby exercising no oversight or governance over the organization.”

The lawsuit also names Casa Ruby founder and former executive director Ruby Corado as a defendant who it says is also responsible for Casa Ruby’s downfall.

The Alston Foundation’s lawsuit followed a separate civil complaint filed against Casa Ruby in July 2022 by the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which alleges that Casa Ruby, under Corado’s leadership, violated the city’s Nonprofit Corporations Act in connection with its financial dealings, including Corado’s alleged unauthorized withdrawal of funds from Casa Ruby.

In a report it released last year, the Alston Foundation said its own investigation into Casa Ruby’s financial records show that Corado allegedly embezzled over $800,000 from the organization, with the board failing to take steps to prevent that from happening.

Corado has denied the allegations against her, saying her withdrawal of funds from Casa Ruby accounts, some of which she said was for her establishing a Casa Ruby outpost in El Salvador, were all approved by the board.

The lawsuit calls on the court to require Corado and the former board members to pay “restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, receivership fees and expenses, court costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and any other relief the court deems necessary and proper.”

In her May 2023 decision, D.C. Superior Court Judge Danya A. Dayson dismissed the lawsuit against seven of the eight former Casa Ruby board members but did not dismiss the case against Corado. The judge also did not dismiss the case against former board member Consuella Lopez, citing evidence presented in the lawsuit that Lopez received some financial benefits from Corado. 

Lopez didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by the Washington Blade. The other board members have declined requests for comment at the time the lawsuit was filed.  

Dayson states in her decision that her dismissal of the lawsuit against the seven board members was based on her interpretation of a D.C. law that says members of an organization’s board of directors can only be held liable for harming an organization like Casa Ruby if they “intentionally, rather than negligently, inflicted harm on Casa Ruby.”

The judge states in her ruling that the law in question also says board members can be held responsible for harming an organization if a “board member intentionally violated a criminal law or that the board member received some amount of money to which they were not entitled.” Dayson states in her ruling that the Alston Foundation lawsuit does not provide sufficient evidence that the seven board members committed those types of violations.

Attorneys with the D.C. law firm Wiley Rein LLP, who are representing the Alston Foundation, dispute the judge’s interpretation of the law. They argue in a 23-page legal brief filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals on Feb. 26 that the Alston Foundation’s Third Interim Report in its role as the Casa Ruby receiver provides sufficient evidence that the former board members are legally liable for harming Casa Ruby.

Their legal brief says based on that report, among other evidence, the court could find that the former board members “were deliberately  indifferent or ‘willfully blind’ to the alleged wrongful conduct of the non-profit’s executive director amounting to actual knowledge on their part that inaction would harm the non-profit, ultimately and forcibly leading to its financial inability to continue operating.”

 The brief adds that if the judge’s dismissal ruling is upheld, it would have an adverse impact on other nonprofit organizations whose board members fail to adequately oversee the organizations.

“If the Superior Court’s order is allowed to stand, directors could both abdicate these responsibilities and claim not to know that such addiction would have adverse consequences for their organizations with impunity,” it says. “Indeed, such a standard essentially provides non-profit directors with an incentive to engage in a ‘see-no-evil’ hands off approach to their responsibilities under circumstances in which the Nonprofit Corporations Act expressly contemplates the opposite.”

Under court rules, the former board members will be given an opportunity through their attorneys to file a response objecting to the Alston Foundation’s appeal of the dismissal ruling.

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