GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Attorney General

By E-Mail
-
***
-
October 29,2010

Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Esq.

Rubin, Winston, Diercks, Harris & Cooke, L.L.P.
1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036

Re: Team Thomas

Dear Mr. Cooke:

In the letter you sent yesterday, you state that you have advised your clients Team Thomas and
Councilman Harry Thomas not to respond to the subpoena issued to Mr. Thomas on October 26,
2010. You also state that your clients are willing to "voluntarily provide ... the information
requested in your letter of October 21,2010."

The scope of the October 26 subpoena is the same as the scope of the October 21 letter. Ifwe
receive the requested information by close of business today, it won't matter whether your
clients say they are responding to the subpoena or to the letter. Ifwe don't receive the requested
information by close of business today, we will petition the Superior Court for enforcement on
Monday. That's the bottom line.

I have to say that I am mystified by your suggestion that media reports cannot provide the basis
for a government investigation, as well as by your statement that "[t]here does not appear to be
any factual basis" for a government "inquiry into the affairs of Team Thomas." When a
reputable newspaper reports that an elected official may have broken the law, the government is
fully justified in inquiring further, if only to satisfy itself that the law has not been broken. The
public expects no less. In this case, the media reports that Team Thomas may have been active
since 2007 are corroborated by Mr. Thomas's own Councilmember web-site, which currently
states that "Team Thomas isfunded by grants, donations, and public and private partnerships.
Each year, Team Thomas distributes turkeys to needy families .... " (emphases added).

I am equally mystified by your statement that there are no facts showing that Team Thomas has
"held itself out to be a charity." On his Councilmember web-site, Mr. Thomas describes Team
Thomas as "a non-profit organization for social change, citizen empowerment, community
development, and youth and senior program development." These stated purposes bring Team
Thomas well within the scope of the District's charitable solicitations law, which defines
"charitable" to include "philanthropic, social service, patriotic, welfare, benevolent, or

1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 409, Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 724-1301, Fax (202) 741-0580
Frederick D. Cooke, Jr., Esq.
October 29,2010
Page 2

educational (except religious education), either actual or purported." D.C. Official Code § 44-
1701(4).

You ask why Team Thomas is "being singled out for scrutiny" and how Team Thomas's
operation is "materially different from the operation of any other not for profit organization in
the District." Team Thomas is being investigated because, despite never having had a license to
solicit contributions in D.C., it appears to be - and is described by Mr. Thomas as - a charitable
organization funded by donations.

You state that, as a nonprofit organization, Team Thomas is not "obligated to make financial
records public." The financial information sought by the October 21 letter and October 26
subpoena closely tracks the information required by the Department of Consumer & Regulatory
Affairs (DCRA) on its Financial Report for Charitable Solicitations, a form that accompanies an
application for a charitable solicitation license. Had Team Thomas applied for a charitable
solicitation license, it would have provided to DCRA, in the normal course, precisely the same
type of financial report now being requested by subpoena.

You point out that it is DCRA, not the Office of the Attorney General, that administers the
District's charitable solicitations law. However, when an organization appears to be evading
DCRA's administrative authority by soliciting charitable donations without a license, it is time
for the Attorney General to exercise his statutory authority to investigate whether the law is
being violated. D.C. Official Code § 44-1712(c)(2) (2010 supp.)

You contend that your assurance to Mr. Rushkoff on October 26 that "half' the requested
information would be produced by the morning of October 27 - the day after the letter's deadline
for voluntary production - made it unnecessary for this Office to issue a subpoena. On October
25, Mr. Rushkoff informed me that you had agreed to provide, by the end ofthe day, a list
showing which of the requested items would be produced by October 26 and which would be
produced later. You never provided that list. As a result, by the close of business on October 26,
we had no information in response to the October 211etter, no idea what information you were
about to produce, and no confidence that what you were about to produce would be of any use.
If, in fact, your clients were ready to produce the requested information on October 27, they
should now have no difficulty producing the same information in response to the subpoena.

Finally, you accuse me of pursuing an "agenda" that "supersedes" my legitimate investigative

purpose. Let me point out that I'm not the one running for reelection. I will not allow this
investigation tp be delayed for political purposes.