Opinion ID: 2384041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Independent Nature of the False Signings Finding

Text: The Board attempted to subpoena 102 circulators, fifty-three of whom could not be served and sixteen of whom ultimately appeared before the Board. [2a] Of the sixteen subpoenaed circulator witnesses who appeared, twelve were from the Red Roof Inn operation. [3a] Of the twelve witnesses, eight testified of false signings; [4a] two witnesses asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and were not recalled; [5a] and two witnesses were found by the Board to have essentially complied with the in the presence component of the circulator affidavit requirement. [6a] Thus, ten of twelve  or 83%  of the circulator witnesses who responded to the Board's subpoena from the Red Roof Inn operation either testified about false signing irregularities in the petition circulation drive, or asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in connection with questions concerning the affidavit they had signed. All of these witnesses worked under the auspices of Stars and Stripes. [7a] The fact that such a high percentage of the subpoenaed circulator witnesses who appeared before the Board from the Red Roof Inn operation testified to false signing irregularities or chose not to testify raised serious concerns regarding whether the irregularities were isolated instances confined to these individuals, or were indicative of a pervasive pattern of wrongdoing as the Challengers had alleged. The testimony of these individuals and others, together with relevant documentary and other evidence, confirmed that the wrongdoing went beyond the witnesses who testified and the three other individuals implicated by name in their testimony. First, the Red Roof Inn circulator witnesses, whose testimony the Board credited, implicated not only the three specifically named individuals, but a much larger group of unnamed wrongdoers  thus forming the basis for the conclusion that the wrongdoing was not isolated, but systemic. For example, Tenisha Colbert stated that she had suggested to Mike Jones, a Stars and Stripes affiliate, that she sign someone else's petition sheets because it was, in reality, a common practice. In this regard, she stated: So, the D.C. residents were signing on the out-of-towners and they was getting other people to sign theirs. So, I figured it was okay, since everybody else was doing it. (BOEE Ex. 69 at 29, n. 28; BOEE Ex. 6h at 27-28). Ms. Colbert further described the nature of this practice that she personally observed: In Mike [Jones'] room, it was always a lot of people, a lot of commotion in his room. Some people would come in and say they didn't (sic) enough signatures or some people didn't have a witness, most of the out of towners. They would say they didn't have enough signatures or they didn't have a witness and they would come and ask Mike do you know a D.C. resident that can sign off my papers, because I didn't have a witness today. And he would find somebody, find a D.C. resident and get them to sign off on their papers. (BOEE Ex. 6h at 31). The practice of non-residents circulating petition sheets unaccompanied by a D.C. resident and then appearing at the Red Roof Inn at the end of the day to have their petition sheets witnessed by any D.C. resident who happened to be available was also reflected in the personal experience to which Antoine Jeffries testified. Mr. Jeffries, a D.C. resident who had no previous involvement in the petition circulation drive, but was simply present in the hotel room of Mike Jones when petition sheets were being turned in, stated that he was drafted to sign the sheets of two non-residents who had no D.C. resident witness to sign their petition sheets. (BOEE Ex. 6h at 58-63). Danielle Campbell testified about similar experiences: Some days like at the end of the day, like at the Red Roof Inn, people didn't have witnesses. The out-of-towners, they will go out all day and get signatures; but they didn't have nobody to sign it. And so I made a couple of extra dollars by just them, signing their papers.... And that's probably how I got all these [petition sheets attributed to me]. Because I don't remember doing all these papers. (BOEE Ex. 6f at 304, 312-315). Andre Rempson also testified that he participated in this brand of false signing activity without even knowing whose petition sheets he was signing: Q: So you never signed any petition sheets that Mike Jones collected? A: I had signed some when we got to the hotel. But I don't know if those are the ones he collected. But I had signed some. Q: So at some point you signed petition sheets at the hotel? A: Yes. Q: And this was petition sheets for whom? A: I don't know. He just passed me the petitions and he told me to sign them. Q: And this was Mike Jones? A: Yes. (BOEE Ex. 6f at 405-406). [8a] Other non-residents appeared to plan ahead in securing an after-the-fact D.C. resident witness. As reflected in the complaint of Angela Rooney, who wrote to the Board about her encounter with non-residents who were circulating petition sheets: The two circulators from Seattle said they didn't have to worry about D.C. residents being there. That they had D.C. residents all lined up to sign off on the signatures after they turned them in. (Board Ex. 26 (Angela Rooney Complaint)). Complaints were also submitted by other individuals who encountered non-residents on the streets of the District of Columbia circulating petition sheets without a D.C. resident present or in close proximity. Board Exs. 1, 3; BOEE Ex. 69 at 32 (John Capozzi Complaints) Board Ex. 26 (J. Marcus Meeks and Norman L. Brown Complaints). The evidence thus showed that this fraudulent practice, which yielded false affidavits that compromised the integrity of the petition circulation process, was not an isolated occurrence. To the contrary, the testimony of the individual witnesses, as well as other evidence, revealed that this was a well-known, common practice engaged in by non-residents, assisted by D.C. residents, and accomplished with the knowledge, direction, and active participation of at least one mid-level/supervisory affiliate of the Stars and Stripes organization to whom petition sheets were turned in. [9a] The seemingly common nature of this practice apparently was not lost on members of the Citizens Committee, who met to discuss rumors of possibly non-D.C. residents petitioning and responded with the drafting of a memorandum to all petitioners. (Challengers' Ex. 16; BOEE Ex. 6c at 319-320; 426). [10] Second, in addition to the foregoing, there was also other evidence which suggested that false signings extended beyond mere isolated occurrences. Among the many allegations of irregularities and improprieties asserted by the Challengers  all of which are properly considered in assessing the totality of the circumstances  there was one alleging that circulator affidavits had been altered. Fifty-four petition sheets were challenged on this basis, forty of which were conceded by the Citizens Committee. (BOEE Ex. 69 at 21 and nn. 16, 17). The challenges to twelve of the remaining fourteen sheets were upheld by the Board. (BOEE 69 at 21 and n. 18). The fact that most of these challenged petition sheets were conceded does not obviate the underlying problem that a physical inspection of these sheets discloses. The altered sheets reveal that the signatures or printed names on the circulator affidavits were crossed out and another signature or name substituted. [11] On seven of the sheets where the original signature can be discerned, Ray Kingsford's name appears. This non-resident was the same Stars and Stripes affiliate whose petition sheets Danielle Campbell testified to having signed, notwithstanding that he had circulated the sheets outside of her presence. See BOEE Ex. 69 at 29. The Ray Kingsford example strongly suggests that some circulator affidavits were being altered in an attempt to conceal  through false affidavits  that non-residents were unlawfully circulating petition sheets. These altered petition sheets provide physical evidence of the false signing irregularities about which there was testimony. Also of significance with respect to the Ray Kingsford example is the fact that this time, it was not Danielle Campbell whose name appeared on his petition sheet, but that of Hope Williams  a different D.C. resident. Consistent with the testimony, it is apparent that non-residents who were recruiting D.C. residents to engage in the false signing activity did not necessarily restrict themselves to a single D.C. resident. Indeed, the names of twenty-three different circulators appear as the replacements for the crossed-out signatures or names on the altered petition sheets. [12] Only three (Tenisha Colbert, Gwendolyn Squirewell and Evelyn Gerst) overlapped with the individuals who appeared before the Board. This evidence further confirms that the false signing irregularities were not confined to those who appeared as witnesses at the Board proceeding. It is this type and caliber of evidence that was presented to the Board in a virtually unbroken chain by the circulator witnesses from the Red Roof Inn operation during the course of the Board proceedings and that went to the core of the Challengers' allegations. ( See BOEE Ex. 69 at 25). In addition to this evidence, there were forgeries  another brand of false signings  about which some of the witnesses testified. [13] There was also the evidence upon which the Board based its conclusion that the Red Roof Inn operation was ripe for the types of improprieties and irregularities that occurred; was fraught with opportunities for abuse of the process, system and laws; and would encourage, on a systemic basis, the kinds of violations about which there was testimony. (BOEE Ex. 69 at 45, 50-51, 45-48 (excluding false advertising evidence)). [14] Further, there was the fact that the Board was unable to locate, for purposes of serving subpoenas, fifty-three of the 102 potential circulator witnesses (over half), thus rendering these individuals unavailable to testify. Eight of these individuals  all of whom were the subject of allegations of wrongdoing by the Challengers  listed addresses that were either non-existent or premises that were abandoned. ( See BOEE Ex. 69 at 47, n. 45). [15] When taken together, there was thus a wealth of evidence  independent of the false advertising finding  which supports the Board's conclusion that serious violations of law that cast doubt on the validity of the signatures gathered permeated and polluted the petition drive operation conducted from the Red Roof Inn (BOEE Ex. 69 at 51), and upon which that conclusion rests. In striking contrast to the steady flow of adverse evidence that was presented to the Board concerning the Red Roof Inn operation, and further reinforcing the strength of that adverse evidence was the deafening silence from the Citizens Committee. See BOEE Ex. 69 at 48. Simply stated, the Citizens Committee produced nothing to rebut the adverse evidence regarding the Red Roof Inn operation, although it had full opportunity to do so. The Citizens Committee produced no evidence in response to the testimony of the individual witnesses  choosing not to even cross-examine some, [16] and failing to produce evidence even when the Board granted the Citizens Committee's request to be allowed time to submit rebuttal evidence. [17] Nor did the Citizens Committee produce any rebuttal to the evidence that there was a systemic pattern of wrongdoing that permeated the Red Roof Inn operation. ( See BOEE Ex. 69 at 48-50). The Citizens Committee was equally silent in response to the difficulty experienced by the Board in attempting to secure the appearance of D.C. resident circulator witnesses to testify before the Board. One would have expected that, having worked on the Citizens Committee's behalf as circulators during the petition drive, and given that circulators are the individuals charged with vouching for the integrity of the process, the Citizens Committee would have secured the appearance of at least some of these witnesses to present favorable evidence  if such existed  regarding the signature gathering process that was being challenged. However, not a single such witness from the Red Roof Inn was produced by the Citizens Committee. Similarly, there were several non-resident affiliates of the petition circulation companies who were implicated in the wrongdoing  indeed, as the ones who were responsible for directing the false signing activities. Having worked on behalf of the Citizens Committee, one would have expected that the Citizens Committee would have secured their appearance and the appearance of other non-resident assistants to defend their actions and the conduct of the petition drive generally. Once again, however, no such witnesses were produced by the Citizens Committee. [18] Most notable in this regard was Mike Jones. Although Mr. Jones was identified as a principal player in alleged wrongdoing at the Red Roof Inn, and his photograph and subsequently his identity were disclosed from relatively early in the proceedings (BOEE Ex. 6e at 9-10), the Citizens Committee ultimately advised that, because he was employed on another job, he was unavailable to testify until August 3  the day on which the Board was statutorily required to render its ruling. (BOEE Ex 6i at 49-50, 136-142). [19] Accordingly, neither Mr. Jones, no[r] any of the other non-resident circulator or mid-level affiliates from the Red Roof Inn operation who were familiar with the details of the signature gathering process were produced by the Citizens Committee. In short, although counsel for the Citizens Committee asserted during his closing argument that the incidents of fraud or forgery [were] not representative samples, but rather the working of individuals who acted for self in violation of the District laws and the committee's procedures, (BOEE Ex. 6i at 225) the Citizens Committee failed to present any evidence to support this assertion. It is, of course, well settled that the Challengers bear the burden of persuasion as to the claims that they asserted. ( See D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 3 § 424.1 (1998).) Nonetheless, once the Challengers have satisfied their initial burden of production  as they did here  it is incumbent on the Proponents to come forward with rebuttal evidence, with the Challengers, of course, responsible for carrying their ultimate burden of proof. The Citizens Committee's utter and complete lack of evidence to counter the Challengers' claims of individual and pervasive wrongdoing in the Red Roof Inn operation rendered the evidence presented by the Challengers dispositive. (BOEE Ex. 69 at 48-50.) Thus, the Board's conclusion that serious violations of law that cast doubt on the validity of the signatures gathered permeated and polluted the petition drive operation conducted from the Red Roof Inn (BOEE Ex. 69 at 51) is well supported by the Board's false signings finding  independent of its false advertising finding. The Board would, therefore, reach the same conclusion in the absence of the false advertising finding.