The Criminal Justice and the Family Court System, If Any -

The Criminal Justice and the Family Court System, If Any

What passes for a system of criminal justice in this country is positively scary. We've all see the stories in which a guy is on death row, or serving life for rape or murder, and DNA evidence proves that he absolutely didn't do it. It makes you wonder how many other innocents are behind bars. If you've seen the system at work, you wonder a lot.

Some time back I wrote a column about Bruce McLaughlin, now in the Loudoun County jail after being convicted of sexually molesting his children. He got thirteen years, which is fine by me -- if he did it.

Briefly, he confessed to extramarital affairs to his wife, who thereafter suddenly discovered the abuse of his four children. Criminal charges followed. Medical evidence being lacking, the conviction rested heavily on transcripts of interviews, by Child Protective Services, of the children -- who said he did it. Well, sort of said he did it. Who actually said he didn't do it. Or said mommy said he did it.

I read the transcripts from CPS shortly after the original trial. They stank. As I said at the time, reporters aren't good at much, but they know a con job when they see it. Everybody tries to con journalists. You come to recognize tendentious, the coached, the craftedly deceptive testimony. Which the transcripts were.

Over and over, the transcripts of the interrogation of the children contain passages like this one:

Stribling [one of the interrogators]: "Is that something you remember?"

Nicholas [McLaughlin's son]: "I think."

Leigh [a cop]: "Do you remember it today?

Nicholas: "Huh?"

Leigh: When you're telling me right now, do you remember that happening?"

Nicholas: "Not really."

Or this. Leigh: "Let me see what else you have here. He had played with my penis. Tell me about that, do you remember that?"

Nicholas: "No. My mom told me that."

(Italics) His mom told him? (close italics) Coached, maybe?

Over and over, the kids say they don't remember being sodomized. Then, after insistence and leading by the questioners, with a suspicious consistency they say they do remember. Their testimony reeks of coaching. One, pushed, said McLaughlin had white pubic hair. No.

Curious about all of this, I got one of McLlaughlin's representatives to send me a transcript they made comparing an actual audio recording of the interviews to the transcrips the jury saw. At one point in it one of the kids twice says the children , ". . . came forward . . ." meaning told adults about the abuse.

Kids don't say, "I came forward." It's adult language. Interestingly, the phrase is omitted in the transcript that the jury saw. Don't let anybody tell you railroads are dead.

Now, why would CPS produce a deceptive transcript? Because child protective services tend to become highly adversarial. Just as defense attorneys and prosecutors become zealots, just as equal-opportunity watchdogs fill with people who see discrimination everywhere, those in CPS come to have a prosecutorial attitude. It isn't deliberate. They don't say to each other, "Let's imprison an innocent man." They merely find what the expect to find.

A conclusion: "The interviews with the children are flawed. They show evidence of suggestion on the part of McLaughlin's wife. They are not properly documented. They are loaded with leading questions ("Let me tell you what I think you're telling me . . .). There are many indications, especially in the interview with Nicholas, that, in fact, nothing is really remembered."

The foregoing paragraph isn't mine. It is from the decision of Michele Anne Gillette of the Virginia Department of Social Services who heard McLaughlin's appeal. She changed the finding from "Founded" to "Unfounded." She did it on the grounds that I noticed long ago, that she saw without difficulty, that you would notice if you read the transcripts. The word "fabricated" appears in her analysis.

It's nuts. A jury, listening to a prosecutor working for the state, found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the same state, as the Department of Social Services, determined the charges, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unfounded. A preponderance of the evidence doesn't constitute a reasonable doubt?

Why is McLaughlin in jail?

This could happen to me or you, gang. McLaughlin is a middle-class lawyer with an ugly divorce. False allegations of abuse of children are a tool of divorce law. In this case Mrs. McLaughlin ran away to New Zealand with the children (in violation of a court order), which makes investigation difficult. It could be any of us. This is how criminal justice works.

Psychologist charged with assault, child abuse at a Silver Spring Clinic in Washington

The president of Washington Assessment and Therapy Services was charged last month with assault and child abuse for allegedly striking a 12-year-old boy being treated at a Silver Spring clinic.

Several calls to Ronald D. Wynne, 71, a psychologist who lives in Kensington, were not returned. Other WATS employees referred questions to Wynne.

Police charged Wynne on May 24 with assault and child abuse after they were called that afternoon to search for a child missing from the WATS center at 8737 Colesville Road in Silver Spring.

While one officer arrived at the center, another officer radioed that the boy had flagged him down.

The boy told police that he had been in the clinic hiding from his therapist when Wynne found and grabbed him, according to the charging documents.

Wynne pulled the boy into his office and pinned him to a chair by his wrists, police said.

The boy yelled, ‘‘Get off me [expletive]” followed by a string of other curse words.

‘‘I’m your [expletive]?” Wynne replied and struck the boy on the right side of the head several times, according to the charging documents.

The boy kicked Wynne and left the building where he flagged down the officer, charging documents said.

WATS has a staff of more than 100, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and counselors to provide mental health services, according to the company’s Web site. It has offices in Germantown and Lanham, as well as Silver Spring.

WATS was one of the mental health clinics contracted by the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services to provide mental health treatment to young people, said HHS spokeswoman Mary Anderson. Its contract expired on Dec. 31 and was not renewed because WATS had not met all of the requirements on staffing, she said. The county paid WATS $58,800 for the counseling provided in 2005.

The Maryland Board of Psychologists received an anonymous call recently about the incident, but had not received a formal complaint, said the board’s investigator, Pat English.

‘‘We will be investigating, I can guarantee that,” English said.

The state board, which oversees mental health professionals in Maryland, has not taken any formal action against Wynne before, English said. Formal action could include suspension or revocation of a license to practice in the state.

English declined to say if any other complaints had been filed against Wynne. ‘‘If there had been complaints, that would be confidential,” she said.

Virginia's Inbred Judiciary

Virginia's Inbred Judiciary

How can this happen? Why do judges in Virginia issue court orders that can make an innocent-enough person feel like the victim of a “hate crime” when some sensibly administered justice would have sufficed? This can happen to people in Virginia because the judicial selection and re-selection process is deformed and has created a judiciary that is inbred which is producing even greater deformity as judicial rulings deteriorate and as judicial respect--for the dignity and the resources of litigants--declines.

When legislative sessions close leaving judicial vacancies, circuit court chief judges must appoint district-level (juvenile district and general district) judges to fill the vacant posts. Circuit chiefs are also responsible for choosing lawyers to serve as substitute judges. Substitute judges and sitting district-level judges are more likely to be appointed or elevated by the legislature and the governor, when legislators are unable to agree, to a permanent seat either on district court or circuit court, if already a substitute judge, and circuit court, if already a district judge, juvenile or general, than non-insider status candidates. Judges for the appeals court and justices for the supreme court are generally recruited from the circuit bench, possibly even landing some of those judge-appointed substitute judges and judge-appointed district-level judges on Virginia’s highest courts. I have never completely understood how some of these promotions, or elevations, are decided.

Furthermore, I have noticed, when a judge advances to another court in mid-term, his or her interview is postponed, that is, delayed by the length of the term associated with that particular court: 8 years for circuit court, 8 for appeals and 12 for supreme. With the Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) program now cancelled by decision of the 2009 legislative session, “interviews,” known officially as “Judicial Interviews of Incumbents,” is the only screening mechanism in place, acting to protect citizen-consumers of legal services from defective judges. The event is annual and it really is Virginia’s ultimate oversight agency for the judiciary because even “Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission” board members must submit to “interviews.” But, and especially since most members of the general public do not go to “interviews,” it is mostly a “rubber-stamp affair.” Citizens, tragically, are skipping “interviews” because it is such a poorly promoted event, and sitting judges, apparently, are skipping “interviews” because jurists promoted before the end of their term slip through such a poorly designed system for screening them.




Incompetent Legislature


...
The General Assembly’s Courts of Justice Committee, under the tutelage of Mr. Albo, is derelict in its duty to appoint and re-appoint good people to the bench because: it has dumped a constitutional responsibility into the laps of circuit court judges (and the governor in those cases when legislators fail to fill judge vacancies at the circuit, appeals, and supreme court levels by close of session of the general assembly), it has junked the Judicial Performance Evaluation program, and it has routinely “qualified” candidates other judges handpicked for confirmation by the entire general assembly in “rubber-stamp affairs” known as “Judicial Interviews of Incumbents.” Though Mr. Albo this winter stated, “[S]omething we need to improve, is that it's too difficult [for members of the general public] to find out when judges are up for appointment and when [citizens] can speak," and, “[U]nless anyone comes to complain, judges usually get re-appointed,” he took no action to ameliorate the situation. Since telling a reporter for The Post 12 months ago exactly the 2008 selection process had been a “total disaster,” Mr. Albo has done an excellent job of showing the problem his back.

A referendum on retention election of state judges by the voters, if successful, would restore a reasonable and intelligent judiciary, improve judicial respect for the dignity and resources of litigants, and increase the likelihood of sensible court orders. Retention election would control for the ever-growing risk of killer-rulings that can make an innocent-enough citizen feel like the target of a “hate crime” because retention election interrupts judge-inbreeding. Retention election would eliminate legislator-commitment to not getting along at judge appointment time and cutting out public input, which encourage judge-inbreeding, because retention election removes the state legislature from any involvement in re-selection and gives the voters the final word on who gets to remain a judge.

The blind and sheltered re-appointment and confirmation of judges, many of whom were handpicked by other judges, simply is not creating a reasonable, intelligent and empathetic judiciary in Virginia. How can it? A judicial candidate, who was probably chosen by another judge, is “qualified” for re-appointment--without performance data, without public testimony, and without professional criteria to determine qualification--in a quiet “rubber-stamp affair,” that is, a candidate is subjected to a silly (Come see for yourself!) interview, lasting no more than 5 or 10 minutes, by a tiny panel of (trial) lawyer-legislators, then almost always breezes right through confirmation by an entire state legislature in yet another “rubber-stamp affair” that, like the silly interview, is nothing more than another formality.

If you agree the process is not “dumb, disgusting, and outright dangerous,” if you believe there is no emergency, you should stop reading now, click out and pray you never find yourself inside a court of law of this commonwealth. If, however, you find my information a wee bit disturbing then please let me know. I urge you also to tell your legislators--the delegate and the senator in your district--and maybe Mr. Rubin too. Send them your idea for a smarter, sounder, and safer judge re-appointment system in Virginia if you don’t like mine.

I propose amending the state constitution to allow the voters to decide in general elections whether to retain judges. I think we need a question on the ballot in November that will address the issue of inserting retention elections into the Virginia judge re-appointment, or re-selection, process. I hope you do too. I know that together we can stop the blind and sheltered re-appointment and confirmation of judges in Virginia and put sensible justice back into our courtrooms.




Public Input
...

You might be asking, What is a “retention” election? Let me clarify with some help from Mr. Litten who wrote in “Let the People Judge the Judges: Reforming Virginia's Judicial Selection Process”:

…The new judge then serves a trial period at the end of which the voting public, through the use of an uncontested “yes/no” retention election, decide whether or not he or she should continue service. If retained the judge goes on to serve a full term and is subject to retention elections at the end of each term.

And,

…Retention elections insert democratic principles into the [judicial selection] process by allowing the ultimate authority in this country, the people, to hold judges accountable while still avoiding the serious problems found in contested elections, such as possible conflicts of interest when contributors to a judge’s campaign appear before the judge in court. “In retention elections, judges run against their records, rather than against opposing candidates, which means that incumbents are at risk of losing their seats only if voters deem their records unacceptable.” Holding retention elections serves “to remind judges that they are judges, not legislators, and that their conduct in office is important. Elections allow citizens to evaluate the judges” while still freeing judicial candidates “from traditional partisan politics and fundraising” and “judicial decisions are more impartial because judges are in a secure environment to decide the cases in a neutral and fair manner.”

Mr. Litten explains that “judicial decisions are more impartial because judges are in a secure environment to decide the cases in a neutral and fair manner” when freed from fundraising, traditional partisan politics, and lawyer-legislators who confirm them and also appear before them in court. I agree. In our current system, it is understandable state judges can be less preoccupied and less concerned with how the public might measure their loyalty to “Black Letter Law” or the “Canons of Judicial Conduct” than how their decisions might play out in “House Room C” at interview time.

Judge Garland L. Bigley was fired, in 2006. She had boldly told her interviewers, “Yes, I sanction lawyers.” Chairman Albo and the other lawyer-legislators were unimpressed. The judge had given, as an example, the lawyer who inconvenienced a lot of people--people like you and me--by not showing up for trial. So she sanctioned him, she said. The legislature disqualifies, or does not confirm, one judge a year, roughly. I was sorry to see Judge Bigley go. The people of the 11th Judicial District had lost a good judge, I thought.

“[L]egislators can and do set their own criteria for determining whether a judge belongs in office,” we learn from Mr. Litten. We learn formal written judicial selection criteria do not exist in Virginia. I highly recommend his article.

The people of Virginia should demand from Richmond more separation between the legislative branch and the judicial branch in matters pertaining to the hiring and the firing of state judges and should see as normal, and urgent, more involvement of the electorate in the judge re-selection (re-appointment) process. It’s really a two-part issue: judge selection and judge re-selection (re-appointment). Retention election addresses the second half of this issue and is the first step toward a true Missouri Plan for Virginia. But Mr. Rubin says we must first amend (definition) the constitution to allow for the public input in judge re-selection (re-appointment) via retention elections.
...
The Question

I ask for your support in getting on the 2009 November ballot the following question:

“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to change the method of re-appointing state judges from confirmation by the legislature to retention election by the voters?

_ YES

_ NO”

Please show your support, or even lack thereof, by sending your comment, your vote, to:

YES.Judge.Retention.Election@gmail.com,

Or,

NO.Judge.Retention.Election@gmail.com.

And please share your viewpoint with your legislators (senator and delegate) when you share it with me. Why not also forward a copy to Counselor and Senior Advisor to the Governor Mark E. Rubin? Information on Mr. Rubin can be found below in my recent email message for him and his answer for me (which also prefaces this post).





Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Mommy Go Bye Bye | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/mommy-go-bye-bye#ixzz1OgSGS2Rk

Kimberly Baucom: CPS's Guard DOG Fairfax County's Chief White Collar Child Abuser

Kimberly Baucom: CPS's Guard DOG Fairfax County's Chief White Collar Child Abuser
Kimberley Baucomb - Fairfax County CPS's White Collar Child Abuser.
Address:
12000 Government Center Pkwy. Suite 549
Fairfax, VA 22035-0064

4-2421 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
kimberly.baucom@fairfaxcounty.gov


This Woman needs to be removed from the Assistant Attorney Position. She is one sick perverted woman who falsifies documents, falsifies in court, aids and abets crooked social workers in stealing children from poor and minority mothers and fathers. She should not be in a government position that is paid for by tax payer's money. Please complain to get her booted out.

Please contact Fairfax County Supervisors and have this woman removed... She should be put on the National Child Abuser List and should be prevented from coming in contact with any Child in the U.S.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/contact/mailform.aspx?ref=1015 - Here is the link to send an email complaining about Fairfax County CPS's abusive practices and about removing Kimberly Baucom.

MASS CPS CORRUPTION

MASS CPS CORRUPTION CONT

GREGORY HESSON ON CPS CORRUPTION

GREGORY HESSON CPS CORRUPTION CONTINUED

CHILDREN KILLED BY CPS

FAMILY COURTS WANT YOUR CHILDREN

ORGANIZED CHILD ABUSE

PARENTS ABUSED BY CPS

CPS IS A FRAUD

CPS ABUSE EXPOSED INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR
Posted by Bernice Wilson at 8:27 AM 2 comments:
Bernice Wilson said...
Kimberley Baucomb changed her name from Kimberly King.. She used to work for the prosecutor's office. Now she has moved to the Fairfax Child Protective Services. This woman is as crooked as the agency she works for. Fairfax County Child Protective Services - or should I say Fairfax County Child Abusing Services.

May 17, 2009 8:31 AM
Nitheesh said...
Hey, nice site you have here! Keep up the excellent work!



Child Care Services

March 25, 2011 12:19 AM

Post a Comment


Newer Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch - Ghost written by Robert Machen (supposedly)

Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch -- supposedly ghost written and distributed by Robert Machen


Complaint against Judge Gaylord Finch -- supposedly ghost written and distributed by Robert Machen



Pursuant to Virginia Code of Professional Responsibilities, and as a lawyer with a private practice in Fairfax County, Virginia, it becomes incumbent upon me to bring to the tribunal various misconducts of Judge Gaylord Finch Jr of Fairfax circuit court.

I am sure you understand why it has also becomes necessary to protect my identity against any retaliatory actions by Judges and fellow lawyers of the Bar.

By this letter, the members of the undersigned organizations are interested in the administration of Justice and the outcome of this issue.

The focus of this letter is to call your attention in particular to the Jagannathan case (Case Nos: JJ352762-01-01; JJ352771-01-01 on appeal from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Chancery Nos: 182927; 182928. in Fairfax Circuit Court.)

Judge Gaylord Finch of Circuit Court Fairfax has clearly abdicated his judicial responsibilities in direct violations of the canons of judicial conduct and has indulged in a two-year judicial activism, extortion, racketeering and judicial bullying under color of law with attorney Robert Machen.

The intent also appears to cover up serious fraud by Robert Machen under the banner of litigation.

Judge Gaylord Finch has been fully aware that The Virginia State Bar had previously disciplined attorney Mr. Robert Machen, reprimanding him twice and suspending his license for falsifying documents. He has had district committee sanctions against him.

Three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Honorable Judge Thomas D. Thorne, Judge Dickson L. Foster, Judge Robert K. Woltz had found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Machen engaged in conduct for personal advantage, involving deceit that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law and found him guilty under DR1-102(A)(4) of code of professional responsibility.

The Organization – Citizen for Legal Reform had reported Mr. Machen has engaged in conduct which tends to undermine the administration of justice and to bring legal businesses into disrepute;

Judge Finch’s actions have set a stage for a possible Department of Justice investigation. It is my understanding that U.S Senator John Warner had written to the DOJ at the request of his constituent.

I hereby request that the County also initiate an independent investigation into the actions of Judge Gaylord Finch.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in the commonwealth of Virginia. Judges should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.

It is not, however, my job to police Virginia’s jaundiced family court judiciary, but, incredibly, it seems that not a soul, not since Landmark v. Virginia in 1978, NOT ONE SOUL, in our Common-wealth is willing to assume that duty and responsibility for the Common-good of our children to reel in Judge Gaylord Finch. I know some who are nicknaming Virginia’s judicial oversight (or is it “overlook”?) board by referring to it as the Judiciary Integral to Racketeering and Corruption, JIRC for short. I know of at least one article that recently appeared titled “Virginia Gangsters in Judicial Robes” I know many who are seeing the chronic shortsightedness in the handling by our Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission in Richmond of citizen complaints against judges and substitute judges as just more shameful justice, or justice that is not reasoned, but knee-jerk, and just is a Sham.

My condemnation of the catastrophic state which the Fairfax county Circuit Court Civil Justice system has reached under Judge Gaylord Finch to permit this kind of harassment of a pro se Litigant by Lawyers racketeering with a Judge is only dwarfed by my condemnation of a significant portion of the Fairfax Judiciary and the legal community looking the other way.

As lawyers, we must be unfailingly ethical and strive to avoid situations that might raise ethical questions as to the administration of Justice. We also have an obligation to report Judicial misconduct to a tribunal.

Chief Judge McWeeny, your judicial and constitutional responsibilities make it your duty to take the appropriate judicial decisions that require the removal of all interference with justice and with the institutions of the State, in such a way as to permit, to all citizens of Virginia, the effective exercise of the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is this condition, which will make possible the true, changes which our people desire; it will be in the true interests of our justice system.

The Family Court system of Virginia has been subject to the implacable tutelage of a class of opportunists and gold diggers who have come to constitute a veritable parallel justice system, one that is located outside all constitutional, legal norms, ethics and statutes that has brought out the National Counsel of Judges and the majority of sensitive positions in other courts. Ignorant of the very notions of impartiality and objectivity, their harmful actions have come to substitute the idea of fairness to families with that of disrespect for the courts and the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Meanwhile, the class of bought divorce attorneys does a brisk trade with its bar allegiances, imposing a sprit of dependence and submission, running against all ideas of change and creative adaptation, and zealously identifying itself with the judiciary currently in power. Their objective is to systematize the conflation of the judiciary and the State, corrupting the institution of family. This behavior, which breeds discord and confrontation, constitutes in reality the true danger of order, security and stability of our families.

The daily practice of our profession has allowed us to appreciate the true reality lived by Judges and this has incited us to forego the duty of silent reserve to which we are held. In a situation where all the possibilities of dialogue, however stormy or unstable, have been shut down, silence can no longer be an option, and the cry of our consciences rings out like a necessity which I can ignore no longer, even if it is our prisons which should paradoxically be the place for us to find dignity, freedom and a clear conscience.

Speaking from experience, Decent hard working fairfax families have been subjected to routine abuse, interference and harassment by our court system, Honest and ethical lawyers in Fairfax, Virginia no longer have any elbow room to perform their duties against judicial activism by Judges like Gaylord Finch. Treated with arrogance and working in a milieu of intimidation and coercion that shackles our will and prevents us from voicing our true convections. Our dignity is insulted daily and our negative image in the hearts of public opinion is mixed with fear, arbitrariness and injustice, to the point that the sole fact of belonging to our profession is degrading in the eyes of the oppressed and people of honor.

It is time you, Judge McWeeny take the appropriate action.

Yours truly,

Chip


A MATTER OF JUSTICE COALITION
JAIL FOR JUDGES ( VIRGINIA JAIL INITIATIVE)
FAMILY RESOLUTION COUNCIL
Center for Judicial Accountability ( CJA)
Committee for Judicial Ethics
Children’s Legal Foundation
Citizens Justice Institute
Constitution Society Citizens for Legal Responsibilility
Americans for Legal Reform
Corruption Crusaders
FATHERS UNITED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND THE WOMEN’S COALITION
Americans for the Enforcement of Judicial Ethics ( AEJE)
American Family Advocacy Center
Children’s Rights Advocacy
Alienated Parents Association
FATHERS FOR VIRGINIAMOTHERS AGAINST UNJUST LAW
Center for Judicial Accountability ( CJA)

Enclosures: CounterIntelligence Division David Szady Letter to Senator Warner / 08-10-05
DOJ letter to Senator Warner / 07-28-05
Senator Warner to RJ /08-16-2005
Assistant Attorney General Michael Favale reply / 03-03-05
Senator Warner to RJ /06-29-2005
Senator Janet Howell to RJ / 03-14-05
DOJ Michael Battle to Senator Warner / 07-28-05
Senator Warner to RJ / 04-15-05
Governor Mark Warner’s letter to RJ /05-09-05
DOJ Priscillia Jones to RJ /03-14-05

Copies to:
Honorable Judge Gayle Carr
Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030

The Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senator

David W. Szady Assistant Director
5309 Commonwealth Centre Pkwy.Suite 401, Midlothian, VA 23112
Counterintelligence DivisionU.S Department of Justice

Michael A. Battle
Director
U.S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington D.C 20530

The Honorable Judith Jagdmann
Office of Attorney General
900 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219

The Honorable Janet Howell
Senator
P.O Box 2608, Reston, VA 20195-8283

The Honorable Michael Favale
Assistant Attorney General
900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219

Christopher A. Wray
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C 20530

Dan Eggen
National Staff Writer - Justice Department
Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20071