RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, LLP

A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 200
1201 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
202 861-0870
FAX: 202 429-0657
WWW.RWDHC.COM

October 28, 2010

VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

Peter Nickles, Esq.

Attorney General of the District of Columbia
Office of the Attorney General
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 409
Washington, D.C. 20001

Re: Team Thomas Subpoena

Dear Mr. Nickles:

As you know, I represent Team Thomas, and Councilman Harry Thomas with respect to
the matters raised in the letter issued on October 21, 2010, and with respect to the subpoena
issued by your office to Team Thomas on October 26, 2010.

At this point, I have advised my clients not to respond to the subpoena of October 26,
2010. My advice to my client is premised on the following:

Both the letter and the subpoena cite as the authority for your demand for testimony and
documents D.C Code section 44-1701, et seq., i.e. the District’s charitable solicitations law. I
believe that the District’s charitable solicitations law is inapplicable as authority for your agency
to demand testimony and documents from Team Thomas, and your agency is, therefore, without
authority to make such a demand by letter, or subpoena.

The District’s charitable solicitations law applies to persons, or organizations soliciting

(directly or indirectly), or receiving contributions that may be used for a charitable purpose.
Team Thomas has not solicited (directly or indirectly), or received contributions that were used
for a charitable purpose.

Team Thomas is a District of Columbia not for profit corporation that is not organized as
a charity. Team Thomas is not registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a tax exempt
charitable organization. Team Thomas operates programs for District youth. Team Thomas has
not held itself out to be either a charity, or a tax exempt charitable organization. There are no
facts reported in the media, or otherwise that Team Thomas has either held itself out to be a
charity or a tax exempt charitable organization, or has issued any sort of document that it was
 RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, LLP

P. Nickles, Esq.
October 28, 2010
Page 2

such an organization. There are no facts that would tend to support any finding that Team
Thomas has made any plea (directly or indirectly) for a contribution on any representation that
such contribution would be used for any charitable purpose. The facts of this matter simply do
not provide a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by your office under the provisions of D.C.
Code section 44-1701, et seq.

Your October 21, 2010 letter suggests that the basis of your inquiry to Team Thomas is
“media reports” that Team Thomas has solicited donations without having complied with the
District’s regulations regarding charitable solicitations. Media reports alone are a pretty flimsy
basis for a government official to initiate an investigation. The same media have reported that
two (2) organizations donated funds to Team Thomas during 2008. The records of DCRA
(which are certainly available to your office) show that Team Thomas was validly existing in
2008.

Neither Team Thomas, nor any other non for profit corporation in the District is obligated
to make financial records public. The media reports do not allege that Team Thomas, or
Councilmember Thomas has misused any of the funds that may have been donated to Team
Thomas. Why is Team Thomas being singled out for scrutiny? There does not appear to be any
factual basis for your agency making any inquiry into the affairs of Team Thomas. How is the
operation of Team Thomas materially different from the operation of any other not for profit
organization in the District? Are similar inquiries being made of those organizations?

Despite the bullying, and ethically questionable tactics that you have employed,
Councilmember Thomas and Team Thomas are absolutely amenable to sharing the information
demanded in your subpoena with your office and the public. Late in the afternoon on October 26,
2010, I had a verbal understanding with Mr. Rushkoff of your office that “at least” half of the
information requested in your office’s letter of October 21, 2010 would be provided no later than
the morning of October 27, 2010. Without any further notice, request, or demand from your
office, I was emailed a copy of a subpoena from your office (at about 5:40PM) demanding the
very same information.

If the information had not arrived on the morning of October 27th, the issuance of the
subpoena would make some sense. What possible difference could waiting until the next
morning make to see if the information was actually provided? The answer, it seems to me, is
that there is another agenda that supersedes actually receiving and analyzing the requested
responses (Curiously, the regulations that implement the charitable solicitations law state that the
Director of DCRA shall administer the provisions of that law rather than OAG).
 RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, LLP

P. Nickles, Esq.
October 28, 2010
Page 2

You have chosen to make this a much more difficult and disagreeable undertaking than it
needed to be. I reiterate the willingness of Team Thomas, and Councilmember Thomas to
voluntarily provide you, and the public with the information requested in your letter of October
21, 2010. I also reiterate that at this point neither Team Thomas, nor Councilmember Thomas is
amenable to voluntarily responding to the subpoena improvidently issued by your office on
October 26, 2010.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours truly,

/s/ Frederick D. Cooke, Jr.

Frederick D. Cooke, Jr.