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

December 1, 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 II

Dear Mr. Nickles:

As you know, my client (Team Thomas) provided the requested responses to your letter
of October 21, 2010 on November 23, 2010. In your letter of November 24, 2010, you advise
my client that your Office has issued a second subpoena in which you request additional
information to assist your Office in determining whether to bring a civil enforcement action
seeking injunctive and other equitable relief in response to the solicitations of charitable
contributions by Team Thomas. I do not believe that the subpoena requests information that is
likely to be either probative, or relevant to your making a determination of whether to bring a
civil enforcement action seeking injunctive and other equitable relief in response to the
solicitation of charitable contributions that you allege have been made by Team Thomas. At
this time, my client is unwilling to voluntarily respond to your subpoena. Please note the
following in response to your letter/subpoena of November 24, 2010.

Because your November 24, 2010 letter does not state that the information provided by
my client in response to your letter of October 21, 2010 was not responsive to that letter, I must
assume that the information was responsive to your October 21, 2010 letter. If my assumption in
this regard is incorrect, please advise me in what respects you believe that the information
provided by my client on November 23, 2010 was non-responsive to your letter of October 21,
2010.

In your letter of October 21, 2010, you state that the purpose of that letter was to request
information needed for an investigation of certain charitable solicitations. The letter also states
that “media reports” suggest that Team Thomas was involved in soliciting donations without
having complied with the District’s registration requirement for charitable solicitations. Team
Thomas, in its November 23, 2010 response, provided all of the information requested in your
 RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, LLP

P. Nickles, Esq.
December 1, 2010
Page 2

October 21, 2010 letter relating to amount received and amount expended. The information
requested and provided was, essentially, the same information that is required to secure
registration under the District’s charitable solicitations regulations. The information requested in
the instant subpoena could have been requested in your letter of October 21, 2010, but was not.
Moreover, the information requested in the subpoena has no bearing at all on the question of
whether Team Thomas has complied with, or not the registration requirements of the District’s
charitable solicitation law.

The names of individual donors, or the names of persons to whom disbursements were
made have no relevance whatsoever to the determination your Office seeks to make.
Additionally, the amount of an individual donation may have some relevance to Internal
Revenue Service regulations, but that information has no relevance to a determination by your
Office of whether the District’s charitable solicitations law has been followed, or not.

In your letter of November 24, 2010, you request additional information that exceeds the
information required to secure registration under the District’s charitable solicitations
regulations. Such a request strikes me as being neither relevant, nor probative of the stated
purpose of the request, i.e. to determine whether to bring a civil enforcement action seeking
injunctive and other equitable relief in response to the solicitations of charitable contributions by
Team Thomas. To the extent that your Office has concluded that Team Thomas has solicited
charitable contributions without having secured the required registration (a conclusion that is
clearly stated in both the letter of October 21, 2010, and the letter of November 24, 2010), it
would seem to me that there are two courses of injunctive relief to be pursued. Such relief could
either enjoin Team Thomas to secure the allegedly required registration, or enjoin Team Thomas
from solicitation until the allegedly required registration is secured. None of the information
requested in your subpoena has any bearing on a request for either form of injunctive relief.

Team Thomas will voluntarily refrain from any future solicitation of donations, and will
wind up its affairs and terminate its corporate existence. In light of this decision by Team
Thomas, there is no need for your Office to bring a civil enforcement action seeking injunctive,
or other equitable relief premised on an alleged failure of Team Thomas to abide by the District’s
charitable solicitations law. Without a basis for a civil action (because of the voluntary
injunction), how can there be any basis for a subpoena?

Your letter of November 24, 2010 states that your Office is of the view that Team
Thomas has engaged in activity for which it is not properly licensed, and that the subpoenaed
information is needed to determine if your Office should pursue injunctive relief that could cease
such activity. Team Thomas has voluntarily agreed to cease such activity. There is no need for
the subpoenaed information. If, however, your Office has a different basis for
 RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, LLP

P. Nickles, Esq.
December 1, 2010
Page 2

requesting the subpoenaed information, please advise me of the basis under District law for such
a subpoena request.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours truly,

/s/ Frederick D. Cooke, Jr.

Frederick D. Cooke, Jr.