Emoluments: Trump Official Capacity Response

Solicitation OAG-FY18-R-0008

Emoluments: Motion for Certification of Appeal








POSITION TITLE:   Staff Assistant






SALARY RANGE:  $63,337 (11 Step 1)   


Please note that this position is only budgeted to the CS-301-11/1, $63,337.


OPENING DATE:  August 13, 2018         


CLOSING DATE:  September 3, 2018               





Office of the Attorney General

   for the District of Columbia

Civil Litigation Division

441 4th Street NW

Washington, DC 20001



TOUR OF DUTY: Monday Friday

                                 8:00am 4:30pm

This position is in the collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME Local 2401 and you may be

required to pay an agency service fee through direct payroll deduction.

DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES: The Civil Litigation Division (CLD) seeks a Staff Assistant to provide substantive administrative support to the Section Chief and staff of CLD Section IV. The Civil Litigation Division defends the District of Columbia in civil matters filed in the D.C. Superior Court, various state courts, and United States District Court. 

Incumbent duties include: 

  • Serving as a timekeeper and point of contact for the section regarding all time and attendance issues.
  • Preparing and processing requests for purchase orders for the procurement of court reporters, transcripts
  • and experts; timely receipting invoices in the office’s Procurement Automated Support System (PASS); monitoring the section’s outstanding procurements and ensuring that funds are timely de-obligated.
  • Processing and distributing mail to Section Chief and staff members.
  • Calendaring litigation deadlines, meetings and agency events in Prolaw, the division’s casefile management system.
  • Inputting new cases in Prolaw.
  • Drafting and preparing letters, memos and other correspondence as assigned.
  • Responding to inquiries and administrative issues. Notifying appropriate staff members of the need for
  • information or recommendations, and either preparing the response or following up to ensure a timely
  • response by others.
  • Scanning and copying litigation documents.
  • Serving as a liaison for service delivery.
  • Responsibility for the ordering, distribution and upkeep of supplies.
  • Assisting with filing and organizing.
  • Assisting with compiling reports.
  • Properly and timely closing out case files for archiving.
  • Performing other clerical and administrative duties as assigned. 

QUALIFICATIONS:   Candidates must have at least one (1) year of specialized experience. Specialized experience is experience that has equipped the applicant with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform successfully the duties of the position, and that is typically in or related to the work of the position to be filled. To be creditable, at least one (1) year of specialized experience must have been equivalent to the next lower grade level in the normal line of progression for the occupation in the organization. For example, to qualify at the DS-11 level, candidates must have at least one full year of specialized experience equivalent to the DS-9 level in District Service.  

SUBSTITUTION OF EDUCATION:  A substitution of education for required experience will be allowed as defined in OPM's Qualification Standards. However, in order to receive credit, applicants must submit official proof of educational attainment at the time of application. 

SUBMISSION OF RANKING FACTORS:  The following ranking factors will be used in the evaluation process.  All applicants MUST respond to the ranking factors.   Please respond specifically to the ranking factor(s) by either typing directly into the free form area provided or by pasting from a text document.  Please describe specific incidents of sustained achievement from your experience that show evidence of the level at which you are applying.  You may refer to any experience, education, training, awards, outside activities, etc. that includes the degree to which you possess the job-related knowledge, skills and abilities described in the ranking factors.  The information given in response to the ranking factors should be complete and accurate to the best of your knowledge.   


Ranking Factor #1: Knowledge of the mission and practices of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), along with the ability to interact with government officials and the general public. 

Ranking Factor #2: Knowledge of and skill in applying office administration principles, methods and practices to maintain the orderly flow of work in the office. 

Ranking Factor #3: Proficiency in the use of operating personal computers (PC), utilizing Microsoft Office, including Word, Outlook, Excel, and PowerPoint. 

Ranking Factor #4: Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. 

OTHER INFORMATION: A background investigation will be conducted.

Please see attachment below for details.


“$500/month for a 3 bedroom, 3 bath townhome in the heart of Washington, D.C.—all utilities, cable and internet included!”

“$50/night for beachfront 2 bedroom house near Ocean City, Maryland – with pool and beach access”

If you find rental listings like the ones above and feel like it’s too good to be true, trust your instinct because it’s probably a scam! Fraudsters are increasingly using fake listings to steal money and financial information from people who are on the hunt for great deals on long-term leases and short-term vacation rentals. Protect yourself from these scams by learning how they work and how to spot them.

How a Rental Scam Works
Scammers primarily rely on two types of rental scams:

  • Hijacked listings: A hijacked listing copies a legitimate advertisement—photos, location, description—and posts it on another website with different contact information. This type of scam seems legitimate because it mimics a real property, but the person you are communicating with is a scammer, not the owner.
  • Phantom rentals: A phantom rental is a listing that uses photos of a property that is not located at the advertised address. This scam attempts to steal your money or information before you find out the property does not exist.

Both types of these scams lure renters with extremely low rental prices and lavish amenities. Once they have your attention, they request money (such as an application fee) or financial information for the property they cannot deliver. Victims sometimes don’t even realize they have been cheated until they show up to the property and find that it does not exist or is not for rent.

Tips to Avoid Rental Scams
Good deals on rentals do exist, but make sure you do your research to make an informed decision. Here are some tips to avoid being scammed:

  • Beware of a deal that seems too good to be true. Make sure that the listing is comparable to other properties in the area.
  • Research the property. If you are signing a long-term lease, you should always view the property in advance of sending money or signing a contract. To avoid hijacked listings, use an online search engine to search some of the listing’s key words to see if the property pops up on another site with different contact information; if it does, it’s probably a scam.
  • Avoid properties where the landlord will not reveal the address. Do not send money or share financial information if the landlord is unwilling to give you an address that you can research. This is a warning sign of a phantom rental.
  • Don’t rush into a decision. It is a red flag if a landlord insists that you must act immediately to take advantage of a property. The scammer may be hoping to rush payment before you have time to research the listing.
  • Never wire money or pay with prepaid card. If you use these forms of payment and are scammed, it is difficult to get your money back.

How to Report a Scam
If you are a victim of a rental scam, contact OAG’s Office of Consumer Protection at (202) 442-9828 or consumer.protection@dc.gov, or submit a complaint online using Consumer Complaint Form.

Attorney General Karl A. Racine issued an advisory clarifying and reaffirming the rights of the District’s public-sector employees and their employers’ obligations in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling on union dues. The Court’s recent Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 ruling overturned decades of law allowing public-sector unions to require non-union employees to pay a fee that helps defray the costs of the benefits non-member employees receive from the unions.

Request for Qualification OAG FY18 H 0007 - Training and Community Outreach Services

Plantiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plantiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Defendant in his Individual Capacity

Below are a list of contracts awarded by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) over $100,000.

Per 27 DCMR Chapter 50, Section  5023.1, the following documents are available upon request.

  1. The solicitation and all amendments thereto;
  2. The contract and all modifications thereto;
  3. Determinations and findings; and
  4. Change orders.

Abacus Next Licenses and Support - OAG-FY17-F-0002

Solicitation No.


Contract/Task Order Agreement No.



Public Performance Management


Abacus Next Licenses and Support

Dollar Amount


Contract type

Firm Fixed Price

Market Type

CBE Set-Aside to DCSS

Procurement Method

Request for Task Order Bid

Award Date

August 7, 2017

Period of Performance  

8/7/17 – 8/6/18

OAG Renovations - OAG-FY17-F-0004

Solicitation No.


Contract/Task Order Agreement No.



Consys , Inc.


OAG Renovations  

Dollar Amount


Contract Type

Firm Fixed Price

Market Type

CBE Set-Aside

Procurement Method

Request for Task Order Bid

Award Date

August 31, 2017

Period of Performance 

8/7/17 – 2/2/18

Drupal Engineering Services - OAG-FY18-F-0005

Solicitation No.


Contract/Task Order Agreement No.





Drupal Engineering Services  

Dollar Amount

NTE $144,000.00

Contract Type

Labor Hour

Market Type

CBE Set-Aside

Procurement Method

Request for Task Order Proposal

Award Date

December 13, 2017

Period of Performance 

12/13/17 – 5/31/18

State AGs Must Fill The CFPB Void, But That's Not Enough

By Attorney General Karl A. Racine, originally appearing in Law360.

Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau successfully sued a group of companies that had flagrantly violated usury laws in several states. Lawyers for the agency alleged that NDG Financial Corp. and associated businesses had run “a cross-border online payday lending scheme” that not only charged interest rates well above state legal limits but used “unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices to collect on the loans and profit from the revenues.” A federal court entered a default judgment against several of the uncooperative defendants, and the rest of the suit was pending.

But then Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s interim CFPB head, not only dropped the lawsuit, but announced in a report to Congress that he is dropping sanctions against the parties that the court had already judged at fault.

That’s just one example of Mulvaney letting alleged law violators in the industry get away scot-free. In March, Reuters reported that, under Mulvaney, the CFPB did an abrupt about-face in its pursuit of another payday lender, National Credit Adjusters, and was considering backing off on three other suits that had been approved under the previous CFPB director, Richard Cordray. Those cases alleged abusive business practices and sought $60 million in restitution for consumers.

Perhaps this is what we should expect from a CFPB run by Mulvaney — who in his previous life as a Republican congressman from South Carolina received more than $60,000 in donations from the payday lending industry and who recently told a group of bankers (according to the Washington Post) that when he was in Congress, he only listened to lobbyists who had given him money. But where does that leave the consumers the CFPB is intended to protect?

Payday loans are taken out by consumers who need fast cash to make ends meet. They are usually due in two weeks, and are tied to the borrower’s paycheck cycle. Industry leaders claim that the loans are designed to help consumers cover unexpected or emergency expenses — but the reality is that these loans, especially when loosely regulated, often drag people into ongoing debt when they can least afford it. And the industry has a perverse incentive to keep it that way.

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, payday borrowers are disproportionately low-income and living on the edge: The average annual income of a payday borrower is about $30,000, and 58 percent have trouble meeting their monthly expenses. Indeed, seven in 10 payday borrowers use the loans to cover basic expenses like rent and utilities, not extraordinary expenses. And doing so buries them in revolving debt: The average payday loan borrower is in debt for five months of the year and spends an average of $520 in fees to borrow an average of $375. 

With $9 billion in interest and other fees on the line, according to Pew research, it’s obvious why the industry wants to keep milking lower-income people of as much cash as possible.

While Cordray was at the CFPB, the agency proposed a new regulation that would better protect consumers from the industry’s worst practices. The rule would have required payday lenders to ensure that a consumer could actually afford a payday loan before issuing it. The rule would also have limited the number of times a lender could “roll over” payday loans — thereby making it more difficult for the lower-income consumers who make up the vast majority of payday borrowers to get caught in endless cycles of revolving debt.

After taking over the agency, Mulvaney put that rulemaking on hold, while the Senate considers killing it altogether. Meanwhile, payday lenders are circling the courts, armed with lawsuits seeking to block the rule. 

Without a national rule, consumers would be left to the mercies of state legislatures and regulators. That might be fine for the residents of the District of Columbia, where we cap effective interest rates at 24 percent (largely outlawing payday lenders). But in the 36 states with no effective anti-usury laws, payday loans are available at unconscionable average annual interest rates (per the Pew Charitable Trusts) of 391 percent. Moreover, payday lending on the internet is increasingly common, meaning that the District of Columbia and states with strong usury laws must often go to great lengths to pursue out-of-state lenders who have unlawfully taken advantage of our residents.

This is why we need a strong national voice for protecting all consumers. The original vision of the CFPB was to be that advocate in the financial services industry, instituting nationwide regulations and bringing enforcement powers to bear against payday lenders and other companies that abuse consumers.

When the CFPB plays this role, I and other attorneys general have a partner with which we can more effectively confront abusive business practices within our borders and win relief. For example, the CFPB filed suit against an online payday lender — CashCall — that unlawfully operated in the district and other states that outlaw payday lending. My office also filed a suit against CashCall alleging that the lender had violated district laws by charging consumers interest rates that ranged from 80 to 169 percent.

The CFPB won a ruling in 2016 that CashCall was guilty of deceptive and abusive business practices, and our office recently settled our lawsuit against CashCall, gaining nearly $3 million in restitution and debt forgiveness for consumers in the district.

Payday lending is far from being the only area where the CFPB’s national leadership has proved invaluable. Since the agency began operations in 2011, it has handled more than a million consumer complaints and returned nearly $12 billion to the pockets of more than 29 million consumers wronged by financial institutions — five times more than the agency itself costs taxpayers to fund. The CFPB has reached multiple settlements with banks, debt collectors and other predatory lenders that harmed consumers.

It also took the strategic lead on regulating other key industries that preyed on vulnerable consumers. For example, partnering with several state attorneys general, the CFPB took action against a number of predatory for-profit colleges, forcing them to pay restitution to consumers the schools lured in with unrealistic promises of a degree and gainful employment.

Now, with Mulvaney gutting the CFPB and giving more leeway to financial miscreants in the name of Mulvaney’s new “strategic priorities” to “recognize free markets and consumer choice,” the burden of standing up to giant, deep-pocketed financial institutions falls more heavily on state attorneys general with the resources and willingness to stand up for the consumers they serve.

One way attorneys general are stepping up is in joining amicus briefs opposing Mulvaney’s appointment as interim director and seeking to preserve the CFPB’s independence in the wake of Mulvaney’s support for turning the agency into yet another political pawn for Congress and the White House. We will be stepping up our efforts to safeguard consumers in other ways as well by bringing individual and multistate suits against financial services companies that harm consumers.

But, in the end, such efforts are by nature piecemeal and can’t replace the power the CFPB has to protect consumers across all states equally. Our end goal must be to be to pull the CFPB back to its original mission and away from subservience to the financial services industry and its army of well-heeled lobbyists. We cannot in good conscience abide businesses operating on a model of keeping consumers trapped in a web of indebtedness while an agency that has “consumer financial protection” in its name decides its strategic priority is to no longer financially protect consumers.