Washington Commanders’ Owner Accused of Covering Up Toxic Workplace

???New revelations about a toxic work environment on the Washington Commanders football team were revealed during a congressional hearing Wednesday but only after Republicans protested that the hearing never should have been held.

???A key revelation came from a House Oversight and Reform Committee investigation, which was summarized in a memo sent to lawmakers.

???“This memorandum describes evidence uncovered by the Committee demonstrating that although publicly, the NFL and Commanders touted the hiring of a respected D.C. attorney [Beth Wilkinson] to conduct an internal investigation of the Commanders toxic workplace, privately, Commanders owner Daniel Snyder launched a shadow investigation in an apparent effort to discredit his accusers in the eyes of the NFL and offer up an alternative target for the investigation,” the memo says. “Bound together by an agreement to pursue a common interest and a joint legal strategy, the NFL and Commanders ultimately buried Ms. Wilkinson’s findings.”

???Snyder ordered the official investigation by Wilkinson after a 2020 Washington Post expose of employee abuse.

???The “shadow investigation” was intended to dig up dirt on former employees, their attorneys and journalists to damage the credibility if they lodged allegations against Snyder, according to the memo.

???Snyder and his top management are accused of allowing and covering up years of abuse of employees. It allegedly included sexual harassment and assault, bullying, threats and public humilitation.

???Some of the worst abuse was reportedly directed against cheerleaders, who told the congressional panel they frequently endured lewd comments and sexual advances.

???Rachel Engleson, who rose from an unpaid intern to senior director of marketing and client services, said she endured years of sexual harassment.

???“This is not just about the Washington Football Team and its employees,” she said in a videotaped testimony played during the hearing.

???Several employees said they would have sued or made their complaints public but they were stopped by non-disclosure agreements they signed when they joined the team.

???Non-disclosure agreements, also known as confidentiality agreements, are contracts that describe confidential material, knowledge or information an employer does not want revealed. Employees or former employees who disclose the information risk getting sued by the employers.

???Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., the committee’s chairwoman, used her investigation of the Commanders as a basis to introduce legislation that would limit employers’ right to use non-disclosure agreements to silence employees. It also would require the employers to investigate credible allegations of employee abuse.

???“What happens in the NFL has consequences for the rest of our country,” Maloney said.

???She asked Snyder to testify at the hearing but he declined, citing a business meeting in Europe he could not avoid. She added that she would subpoena Snyder to order him to testify next week.

??The only witness at the hearing was National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell, who agreed with many of the complaints about Snyder and the Commanders.

???“The workplace of the Washington Commanders was not only unprofessional but toxic for far too long,” Goodell said.

???The NFL fined Snyder and the team more than $10 million. It also ordered revisions to personnel practices before Snyder could resume control.

???Republicans said the hearing was a waste of time when the nation was facing more important issues like an economic downfall, an opioid crisis and international turmoil.

???Some of them questioned whether Maloney exceeded her authority by calling for a hearing into a private business like the Commanders.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Giuliani Faces New D.C. Ethics Complaint Over Attempt to Overturn 2020 Election

???Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and attorney to Donald Trump, is facing new ethics charges from the D.C. Bar that could lead to his disbarment.

???The D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility accuses Giuliani of violating the ethics code by trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election with false claims of voter fraud.

???By filing a lawsuit in federal court based on the false claims Giuliani “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,” says the D.C. Bar’s complaint filed in the Court of Appeals.

???The complaint filed this month comes about a year after Giuliani was suspended from practicing law in the District of Columbia and New York for trying to overturn the election that unseated Trump.

???At one point during a Nov. 17, 2021 hearing in federal court in Pennsylvania Giuliani said, “But the best description of this situation is, it’s widespread, nationwide voter fraud of which this is a part. And that’s probably the reason I’m here, Your Honor, because this is not an isolated case, it’s a case that is repeated in at least ten other jurisdictions.”

???Giuliani had argued in his pleadings that roughly 1.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania should be thrown out for violating the state’s election laws. He said voter fraud made them unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

???His lawsuit was dismissed after the hearing. The judge’s ruling said, “Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others.”

???The judge added, “This is simply not how the Constitution works.”

???The D.C. Bar followed similar reasoning in citing Giuliani for violating its ethics rules.

???“There was no factual or legal basis for the Equal Protection claims that Respondent made with respect to the Defendants or for the relief that Respondent sought, including the invalidation of up to 1.5 million ballots cast in the Defendant Counties,” says the D.C. Bar complaint filed by Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox.

???The next phase in the disciplinary process against Giuliani is a hearing. Afterward, the “Hearing Committee prepares a report and recommendation, with proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended sanction,” the D.C. Bar’s website says.?

???The recommended sanction is filed with the Board on Professional Responsibility but the D.C. Court of Appeals holds final authority, which could include suspension or disbarment.

???Giuliani is formerly the third highest Department of Justice official and a famed prosecutor as the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan in the 1980s.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

FBI Investigates Brookings Institution President for Failing to Disclose Foreign Lobbying

???The FBI is investigating the former president of Washington, D.C.’s Brookings Institution after he was accused of illegal lobbying for the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar.

???Retired Gen. John Allen resigned from the prominent public policy foundation without explaining his stance on the allegations. A spokesman denied wrongdoing.

???“I know it is best for all concerned in this moment,” Allen wrote in a letter of resignation to his colleagues.

???He is a four-star Marine general who led the U.S. and NATO military effort in Afghanistan.

???Justice Department court filings show the FBI seized Allen’s electronic data as it investigated whether he helped influence U.S. policy. The government of the tiny oil rich nation reportedly called on Allen for help in June 2017 during a crisis with neighboring countries.

???An affidavit filed to support a search warrant said there was “substantial evidence” Allen had knowingly violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by failing to register with the Justice Department or to disclose his status as a lobbyist.

???The FBI says Allen gave a “false version of events” during a 2020 interview and did not turn over email messages requested in a grand jury subpoena.

???He failed to disclose “that he was simultaneously pursuing multimillion-dollar business deals with the government of Qatar,” FBI agent Babak Adib wrote in a search warrant application.

???When Allen spoke with White House officials and members of Congress about the 2017 dispute between Qatar and its neighbors, he reportedly told them he was trying to prevent U.S. troops from becoming caught in the conflict. He said nothing about being paid by the Qataris.

???The same investigation led Richard G. Olson, a former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan, to plead guilty to federal charges this month.

???Brookings hired Allen as a senior fellow before promoting him to president in late 2017 with a more than $1 million a year salary. Qatar has been a financial supporter of Brookings in recent years.

???“The integrity and objectivity of Brookings’ scholarship constitute the institution’s principal assets, and Brookings seeks to maintain high ethical standards in all its operations,” the institution said in its statement.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Judges Concerned for Safety as Threats Against Them Grow

???A panel of judges at an American Bar Association conference said this month that Congress should act quickly to ensure their safety amid growing threats.

???Panelists during a webinar based in Washington said the ability of the judiciary to maintain law and order is at risk without better protection.

???Security incidents against federal judges rose 89 percent between 2016 and 2019, according to a recent audit by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

???The concerns are heightened by an expected Supreme Court ruling within as little as a few days that could overturn a federal right to abortion. A draft copy of the ruling leaked to the media shows the super-majority of conservative justices would make abortion rights a matter of discretion for each state.

???Thirteen states plan to ban all abortions. Another 13 plan stiff restrictions.

???Protests and threats that already have erupted since the draft ruling was published May 2 by Politico indicate protesters could become violent.

???As a result, the U.S. House of Representatives gave final congressional approval June 14 to a bill to expand police protection for the families of Supreme Court justices and senior officers of the court. The legislation already won approval in the Senate.

???More action to protect judges is likely soon in Congress as it considers the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021, named for the murdered son of New Jersey federal Judge Esther Salas.

???It authorizes funding for the federal judiciary to monitor and assess online threats, investigate complaints and address acts of aggression. It would allow the U.S. Marshals Service to hire additional staff to enforce the proposed law.

???“What happened to Judge Salas and her husband was a heartbreaking tragedy. No judge should have to fear for their safety, or the safety of their families, because of public service to our country,” said Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., who co-sponsored the bill.

???In addition, Republican senators are calling on the Justice Department for vigorous prosecution of persons who attack judges weeks after a Wisconsin judge was murdered in his home and after a man was arrested as he planned to kill Supreme Court Justice Brent Kavanaugh.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Approves Law Banning Reprisal Against Workers Who Use Marijuana?

???A law approved this month by the D.C. Council forbids employers from punishing or firing most employees who use or test positive for marijuana use.

???The employers could be fined $5,000 for violating the law. They would need to pay the reprimanded employees back pay and attorneys’ fees.

???The Cannabis Employment Protections Amendment Act also would ban employers from refusing to hire applicants who use marijuana.

???The law creates an exception for “safety sensitive” professions, such as health care providers, police, construction workers and persons who operate dangerous machinery. They still could be refused employment or fired for marijuana use.

???Other exceptions cover District of Columbia court workers and federal employees or anyone whose job performance is impaired by marijuana use.

???The D.C. law follows a nationwide trend toward greater tolerance toward marijuana. Nevada and New York also have approved laws banning employment discrimination against cannabis users.

???The D.C. Council has allowed medical use of marijuana since 2010 and possession of small amounts for recreational use since 2015. It remains illegal to sell marijuana, use it in public places or operate vehicles under its influence in the District of Columbia.

???Another demonstration of tolerance came in April, when the D.C. Council voted against tough penalties on retail “gifting” shops that give away marijuana as an added benefit to customers who buy their clothing, drinks or other goods.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.