Galileo III, Downtown in the old Butterfield 9 Space - Closed

[mdt]

Roberto Donna in a deposition: I'll be a salaried employee at G3, earning $50,000/year.

G3 paperwork on file with the DC Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration: The restaurant's owner is RCR, which is owned by Mabel LLC, whose managing members are Corrado Bonino and ... Roberto Donna's wife.

Yup, old news that was known before they opened. As a convicted felon he cannot be on the booze license IIRC. I wonder whose name is on his house and other assets. The sad thing is that everyone should have seen this coming.

[thetrain]

I wonder whose name is on his house and other assets.

From Carmen's article-

"Both attorney Clark and treasurer O’Leary have, at one time or another, been frustrated in their attempts to find assets in Donna’s name that they can seize. “Nailing him is like nailing mercury to a board,” the treasurer said, noting that many of Donna’s assets are in his wife’s name. Clark added that there’s no court-ordered repayment plan in the federal case [**the 1/2 million dollars in back wages, damages and legal fees he owes from Bebo and the old Galileo**] , but she hopes to change that in the future.

Securing assets could also present a problem for any potential Galileo III creditors. Bonino, not Donna, is the owner of RCR, and Bonino does not live in the United States. He lives in Italy."

[B.A.R.]

Roberto Donna in a deposition: I'll be a salaried employee at G3, earning $50,000/year.

That was the quote that screamed out "THIS IS A SHAM".

Chef Donna's value on the market as an Executive Chef ONLY for a high end Italian restaurant is six-figures. I manage a hotel, and if my hotel was a luxury hotel with aspirations for a high-end fine dining Italian restaurant I would hire him in a second. His responsibilities would be just as he currently describes "write the menu, (cook the food)". He could live a life of relative comfort (no mansion in McLean, no luxury cars) and pay down his debts.

The reincarnation of G3 seems to be nothing less than one last sting, preceded by 15 years worth of fraud with wine companies, wine distributors, investors, payroll shenanigans, tax evasion, etc. etc. etc.

[DaRiv18]

except when that person is a felon with a known history that folks chose to ignore for whatever reason. . . and pointing to those that chose not to eat there for ethical reasons is just an attempt to absolve themselves of any blame.

Just curious, what is your take on the employees that chose to work at G3, despite the red flags about the operator? Do you blame the victims with an equal scorn that you unleash on the diners, or do you defend them as people who were somehow forced to work there?

Edited August 25, 2011 by DaRiv18

[xdcx]

Just curious, what is your take on the employees that chose to work at G3, despite the red flags about the operator? Do you blame the victims with an equal scorn that you unleash on the diners, or do you defend them as people who were somehow forced to work there?

You're assuming they all knew. And at 10% unemployment, can't really blame anyone for trying to get a paycheck. Not really sure what the point of your question is? Do you honestly believe that there's no ethical component to deciding who to spend your dining dollars with? If people didn't keep feeding the problem, they wouldn't keep opening up restaurants and adding to the numbers of folks left in the wake.

[sandynva]

Oh, and +1 on Tujague's point. I think a bit too much sanctimoniousness on this thread ostensibly about a restaurant.

Completely agree. first, this is supposed to be an online community, right? so the sniping at individuals who merely had a meal at a restaurant that did unethical, illegal things seems misdirected, after all, the diners aren't the primary source of the bad acts here.

Second, and i say this as someone who's never been to g3 and thus isn't trying to justify anything --isn't it possible that some of those who went were either giving donna the benefit of the doubt, or just didn't know the magnitude of what was going on? speaking for myself at least, i'd never seen the whole story about donna put together the way that article did. i'd known there were some tax issues at bebo, but never really followed the story so didn't know the details or their magnitude, and i'd definitely never heard about the prior suits. there's an overload of information these days and we all pick and choose what stories we actually read and keep up on. i just happened to forget to follow the donna stories and was stunned by the article. (i'd previously thought that the tax issue was the sort of garden variety disagreement many people have with tax authorities) So, i assume that many of the people who went could have been quite unaware of the magnitude of the issues.

And, are we really going to start judging other members by the moral content of a single meal? Are we going to subject individuals who ate foie or veal, or tomatoes harvested by harshly exploited migrant workers to sort of sanctimony that has been thrown about in this thread?

finally, now that this story's come out, i'm not sure how much longer g3 will be around and i think that many people who went there previously may chose not to go again. given this, what does the criticism of past meals accomplish? if this was a new restaurant, or people were talking about meals they intended to have, or planned outings, it might make sense, but doing it now is just unproductive.

[B.A.R.]

If anyone absolutely knew that people were going to get screwed in this endeavor, than MAYBE they have some kind of ethical issue.

But no one is morally bankrupt simply for dining at G3, and most people really wanted to believe "this time, it'll be different". Hell, I was hoping but really, really skeptical. My Banh Mi at Eden Center does not make me a Vietnamese gang sympathizer, and anyone else's Burrata at G3 does not make them an accessory to potential fraud.

Just makes them hungry, and human.

[Heather]

I stand by what I wrote eight months ago. The facts were out there, and highly publicized on the board. This kind of shit makes the whole trade look bad, and hurts the people who can least afford it.

I am doing my part by not throwing my cash after a serial offender. My dining dollars, as few as they are, will continue to go to places that pay their employees and their taxes.

[Tujague]

except when that person is a felon with a known history that folks chose to ignore for whatever reason. Getting hyper defensive now after another case of it doesn't really change anything, and pointing to those that chose not to eat there for ethical reasons is just an attempt to absolve themselves of any blame. There is a fundamental difference between a boycott and the creation of charity. The assertion that the only way to show you care is to actively create something for everything you choose to boycott is hollow. If you don't care, you don't care. That's fine, but don't try and give people grief who saw it coming and chose not to take part.

Not eating at a restaurant + making a critical comment on DR.com a year ago = boycott? Puh-leeze. Let's restore and preserve the word for those who have actually engaged in real sacrifice and risk on behalf of promoting social justice; co-opting it to announce one's righteousness sullies real heroes. Nobody "boycotted" G3; they abstained from going there, that's all.

[Heather]

Not eating at a restaurant + making a critical comment on DR.com a year ago = boycott? Puh-leeze. Let's restore and preserve the word for those who have actually engaged in real sacrifice and risk on behalf of promoting social justice; co-opting it to announce one's righteousness sullies real heroes. Nobody "boycotted" G3; they abstained from going there, that's all.

Are you actually talking to me? Because I didn't use the term "boycott."

[xdcx]

Not eating at a restaurant + making a critical comment on DR.com a year ago = boycott? Puh-leeze. Let's restore and preserve the word for those who have actually engaged in real sacrifice and risk on behalf of promoting social justice; co-opting it to announce one's righteousness sullies real heroes. Nobody "boycotted" G3; they abstained from going there, that's all.

Sorry you don't agree with the use of the word, but it does fit what a lot of people did. I don't think anyone is trying to turn it into anything more than it was. It was your assertion that people should start a charity as an attempt at a dig.

[sheldman]

Lots of defensiveness/anger in this thread.

Seems like it would be possible to chill out at a middle ground. If a potential customer is aware of information that the proprietor has engaged in a long pattern of cheating both people with less $ and prestige than himself (working-class employees) and the public - and if the potential customer lacks good reason to believe that the fraudster has changed his ways - and if the potential customer doesn't have an awfully good countervailing reason - the customer should stay away no matter how good the food tastes. If the customer is momentarily blinded by the desire for some personal pleasure, he or she is not a moral monster but should probably try harder next time in striking the right balance between personal pleasure and social responsibility.

This leaves aside harder questions of how much "duty" a customer has to try to find out things, and how much duty there is to do something more than simply staying away. Those are harder and more divisive questions.

Then there are some, I guess, who happily say that they care only about whether the food tastes good.

My decision not to go to G3 was easy because I never liked his previous restaurants. No morality points for me!

[Dr. Delicious]

I took advantage of the deal and enjoyed a very nice meal with my wife, even after having read previous posts outlining some of his questionable practices. I am a fucking monster.

[monavano]

Mr. MV and I were going to take advantage of the deal but were out of town. I thought "clean slate" both in terms of Donna's financial past and our last crappy pizza at Bebo. This whole clusterf*%k would never have been on my radar but for DR. The extent of Donna's (et al) despicable behavior flew under my radar until this article, which was fair, I assume quite accurate and let's face it, a bit gutsy.

Has this been the dirty little secret that many insiders knew but didn't speak about or print formally and "on the record"? Will Carman get a bit of blowback from this expose?

[Tujague]

Are you actually talking to me? Because I didn't use the term "boycott."

No, Heather, if you will look, I actually was responding to another post; it just happened to land after your post. I suspect that most of this is happening because it is not particularly satisfying to villify Roberta Donna or his backers, since they can't or won't respond, so let's go after his patrons, who do post on this board. It's pointless to try to shame Donna, so let's find someone else to bear that shame we demand to satiate our outrage. Hell, let's blame Don for allowing Donna to make a special offer to the board; that makes him complicit, too, no? Yeah, it's an outrageous situation, and we all want someone to be accountable, whether or not we patronized the place.

C'mon, we all live lives filled with ambiguity, compromise, and sometimes failure; we're all experts at willful ignorance. But, as we've seen with the reports on Donna, shaming people is no certain path to accountability, much less remorse. So what's the point of trying to shame those of us who patronized his restaurant, for whatever reason? I don't defend that choice, but I do defend myself and others from the sort of smugness that assumes that it is not subject to the same ambiguities, compromises, and failures.

[mdt]

No, Heather, if you will look, I actually was responding to another post; it just happened to land after your post. I suspect that most of this is happening because it is not particularly satisfying to villify Roberta Donna or his backers, since they can't or won't respond, so let's go after his patrons, who do post on this board. It's pointless to try to shame Donna, so let's find someone else to bear that shame we demand to satiate our outrage. Hell, let's blame Don for allowing Donna to make a special offer to the board; that makes him complicit, too, no? Yeah, it's an outrageous situation, and we all want someone to be accountable, whether or not we patronized the place.

C'mon, we all live lives filled with ambiguity, compromise, and sometimes failure; we're all experts at willful ignorance. But, as we've seen with the reports on Donna, shaming people is no certain path to accountability, much less remorse. So what's the point of trying to shame those of us who patronized his restaurant, for whatever reason? I don't defend that choice, but I do defend myself and others from the sort of smugness that assumes that it is not subject to the same ambiguities, compromises, and failures.

He was probably responding to my post, which I stand behind. Much of the info was available before G3 even opened. I just find it interesting and a bit suspect that folks did not have a problem supporting a restaurant team with the history it has had.

BTW, Donna does post on here, and I believe responded at some point in the past. Funny how Donna had no problem posting to offer the board a special deal but had no comment on how he was making amends for stealing from his customers and employees.

[darkstar965]

Completely agree. first, this is supposed to be an online community, right? so the sniping at individuals who merely had a meal at a restaurant that did unethical, illegal things seems misdirected, after all, the diners aren't the primary source of the bad acts here.

Second, and i say this as someone who's never been to g3 and thus isn't trying to justify anything --isn't it possible that some of those who went were either giving donna the benefit of the doubt, or just didn't know the magnitude of what was going on?...

And, are we really going to start judging other members by the moral content of a single meal? Are we going to subject individuals who ate foie or veal, or tomatoes harvested by harshly exploited migrant workers to sort of sanctimony that has been thrown about in this thread?

finally, now that this story's come out, i'm not sure how much longer g3 will be around and i think that many people who went there previously may chose not to go again. given this, what does the criticism of past meals accomplish? if this was a new restaurant, or people were talking about meals they intended to have, or planned outings, it might make sense, but doing it now is just unproductive.

Thanks for this post, sandynva. As one of the primary sniping targets on this thread in recent days, you've done such a much better articulating what I was trying to get across.

Lots of defensiveness/anger in this thread.

Seems like it would be possible to chill out at a middle ground.

Gosh, I'd sure hope so. That's one of the qualities that distinguishes dr.com, isn't it? I haven't been an active contributor to dr.com for that long a time--several months really after joining a few years ago. I can say that a major reason why I value this community has been that it is usually civil, informed, constructive and thus valuable to me. This thread hasn't been that way the past few days. On one hand, I'm a big boy and, like all of us, have seen much worse in other spots online. On the other hand, seems unfortunate here.

The irony is that we likely all share the same anger at the thought of vulnerable restaurant workers being exploited. That's egregious, wrong, illegal and at least deserving of scorn if not more substantive penalties from our legal system.

Speaking only for myself, I haven't been to G3 since last year and won't be going again. Hadn't felt the need to declare that before because the judging was well underway in many directions on this thread absent a lot of information about those of us here among the implicitly accused. That and a fair amount of piling on is why I'd suggested a separate thread be considered for sniping. Sure this is about G3 but most of the past few days' posts have been about how wrong and unethical this chef has been (a true and good point but how many times must it be made and to what end?) and how bad any of us who ever ate at g3 must therefore be. I'll observe again that noone here has argued in the past couple of weeks that they would--or anyone should--patronize g3. And, even if they did, to each his own. Direct but constructive disagreement is great stuff--a big reason why I'm here. The personal judgments and sniping are just unnecessary and, as was posted upthread, entirely "unproductive."

[darkstar965]

...Much of the info was available before G3 even opened. I just find it interesting and a bit suspect that folks did not have a problem supporting a restaurant team with the history it has had...

BTW, Donna does post on here, and I believe responded at some point in the past. Funny how Donna had no problem posting to offer the board a special deal but had no comment on how he was making amends for stealing from his customers and employees.

You can find it "interesting" but please don't find it "suspect." That comes across in a way that you maybe don't intend: judgmentally toward fellow dr.com members. It assumes that the dozens of us who ate a meal or two there last fall made a fully informed decision to disregard everything that Heather had in her post 8 months ago (which personally I hadn't read until a few days ago but thought a great writeup) or Carman's article earlier this week. It also assumes that those same dozens (of which I am one) are purposefully ignorant at best or outright anti-worker at worst. That assumes an awful lot about people who, at least in many cases, you don't even know. I'd defer again to sandynva, who I think captures all the points around the 'dr members that ever patronized g3' defense perfectly

Couldn't agree more with you (mdt), though, on the Donna posting point.

Hopefully this awful G3 situation will represent a silver lining for the owners and staff of Bibiana, Fiola and Tosca in that they'll see bumps in business. Those spots are where I suspect most of us will be spending our money in the future when in search of elevated and delicious Italian food. Great to live in a city with real choices, eh?

Thanks to all of you--even those with the loaded revolvers hopefully (but not presumably) now back in their holsters.

[B.A.R.]

I took advantage of the deal and enjoyed a very nice meal with my wife, even after having read previous posts outlining some of his questionable practices. I am a fucking monster.

This made me laugh out loud.

People. Please. Why are we attacking one another? I have heard many Roberto stories from "insiders" that would make what has appeared in the Post seem mild. But if I chose to dine at G3 it was with the hope that he had accepted his responsibilities and was trying to make a positive difference.

If we want to get into a morality discussion about individual purchases, let's all pedal our bicycles over to the farmers market, kick up our Toms, and discuss how we are going to live the rest of our lives off the grid.

[Pat]

Just curious, what is your take on the employees that chose to work at G3, despite the red flags about the operator?

At the time the restaurant opened, I was curious about why people would work there with the history of employees not getting paid. I asked someone I know who has worked as a server/bartender in a lot of restaurants, and he said that, as far servers go, people who need cash and need it quickly might take the jobs to get the tips, even if they never get their full pay. I'm sure there are other reasons, but I had not thought of that one.

[jdl]

Not quite a dirty little secret; this was on the front-page of The Post last August.

Plus, there was ample coverage in print, Web and broadcast outlets of the guilty plea in the Arlington County meals tax case. Etc.

Plus, in December, there was this.

Also: This.

the Kliman and Sietsema reviews didn't exactly gloss over the issues.

[squidsdc]

He was probably responding to my post, which I stand behind. Much of the info was available before G3 even opened. I just find it interesting and a bit suspect that folks did not have a problem supporting a restaurant team with the history it has had.

Well just to point out that not everyone is "up" on the events going on, I just got back from eating lunch at Bobby's Burger Palace, and who was sitting next to me? RD and guest. Not sure who the other person was, but I tried my darndest to listen in on any conversation, to no avail.

After they left, I asked several of the restaurant workers if they knew who was sitting next to me, and even when I told them who it was, they still did not know. Even with the coverage in the WaPo yesterday, there are lots of people (potential dining guests and potential workers) who are clueless as to what is and has gone on. And when I returned to my office, most of my coworkers were also clueless as to who he is.

Someone mentioned upthread about an overload of information available these days and how we all pick and choose what stories we actually read and keep up on. Not everyone is in the know, and even if you wonder, how could they not be? The answer is obviously that there are plenty who are just naive to the information available. And plenty who either choose to ignore/ forgive past transgressions.

[Heather]

People. Please. Why are we attacking one another? I have heard many Roberto stories from "insiders" that would make what has appeared in the Post seem mild. But if I chose to dine at G3 it was with the hope that he had accepted his responsibilities and was trying to make a positive difference.

Point taken.

I don't think what I wrote in December rises to the level of "attacking," and I apologize for making people uncomfortable. Please read it. I described it as "disheartening," not a fucking moral outrage. I'm not a saint, and don't expect anyone else to be either, but I figured that this community would be better educated about the situation, and as such, less like to take advantage of a deal from a questionable place.

[agm]

He was probably responding to my post, which I stand behind. Much of the info was available before G3 even opened. I just find it interesting and a bit suspect that folks did not have a problem supporting a restaurant team with the history it has had.

Just because information is available doesn't mean everybody knows it. I went to G3 when it opened. Twice. Did I know that Donna had been accused of ripping people off? Yes. I also knew that he had claimed that he was trying to make amends, that he claimed no longer to be in control of his business (and theoretically was not in a position to rip people off anymore), and that court proceedings were in progress to hopefully provide restitution to those who were taken advantage of.

Now, if I was an avid observer of the restaurant industry, if I read all of the posts on this board, and the articles in the Post, City Paper and elsewhere, if I closely followed the shenanigans of Mr. Donna (some alleged, some proven), I would have known that there was a long history of such behavior; that second chances had stretched to fourth, or fifth, or more; that the financial structure of the new restaurant stank of fraud. I would have known that more people were going to get hurt.

But you know what? Despite the pleasure I take in food, I don't really pay too much attention to the industry. I've eaten at a number of wonderful restaurants, and try to keep up with what's out there, but I really don't eat out that often, not counting basic take-out or crappy delivery pizza. I've made a lot of friends through this board, but read only a tiny fraction of the topics. I don't read the Post or City Paper food sections - I did, for a little while, but got bored with it. I don't read food blogs, except when I google a particular recipe or ingredient and find my way there. I'm a big fan of many chefs in this area, but I can count the ones I know - meaning, they would recognize me and know my name - on one hand.

I honestly didn't know the full history of Donna's restaurants at the time I went, and saw no reason to avoid giving him my business. Then I learned, and I stopped.

Boycott his restaurant. It's the right thing to do. And if you can help make sure that people know the relevant facts and can make informed decisions about where to spend their money, that's fantastic. But please, don't judge other people's choices based on your knowledge.

[lekkerwijn]

Mr. MV and I were going to take advantage of the deal but were out of town. I thought "clean slate" both in terms of Donna's financial past and our last crappy pizza at Bebo. This whole clusterf*%k would never have been on my radar but for DR. The extent of Donna's (et al) despicable behavior flew under my radar until this article, which was fair, I assume quite accurate and let's face it, a bit gutsy.

Has this been the dirty little secret that many insiders knew but didn't speak about or print formally and "on the record"? Will Carman get a bit of blowback from this expose?

I think this pretty much sums it up for most people.

The two times we ate there we did notice what appeared to be several "security" cameras throughout the dining room. We joked with friends that they were there as part of his deal with the DC/Arlington government so they wouldn't be able to fake their books.

[Escoffier]

But please, don't judge other people's choices based on your knowledge.

Thank you. A voice of reason almost lost in the overwhelming din.

[darkstar965]

...The two times we ate there we did notice what appeared to be several "security" cameras throughout the dining room. We joked with friends that they were there as part of his deal with the DC/Arlington government so they wouldn't be able to fake their books.

When we ate there last year, we specifically asked about those cameras and were told they were installed by request of the US Secret Service. Further, that the Chef had "friends in the administration" who regularly or semi-regularly would be coming in and "felt more comfortable" if the folks with the dark glasses and earbuds could keep tabs on things downstairs (the VIP room is upstairs) via video monitors. Didn't know what to make of that then and definitely don't know what to make of it with all that's now known. But, safe to say installing that kind of system isn't something all (most?) restaurants do and surely it added significant cost to the restaurant's buildout. Guess that's where some of the revenue has gone. Haven't noticed high-end video equipment like that at Ray's Hellburger but didn't Obama go there with the Russian president and Biden?

[Tujague]

When we ate there last year, we specifically asked about those cameras and were told they were installed by request of the US Secret Service. Further, that the Chef had "friends in the administration" who regularly or semi-regularly would be coming in and "felt more comfortable" if the folks with the dark glasses and earbuds could keep tabs on things downstairs (the VIP room is upstairs) via video monitors.

Case in point: Antonin Scalia showed up when I ate there last year. Perhaps he went based on what he believed was Donna's "original intent" to run an ethical business.

[mdt]

Boycott his restaurant. It's the right thing to do. And if you can help make sure that people know the relevant facts and can make informed decisions about where to spend their money, that's fantastic. But please, don't judge other people's choices based on your knowledge.

If it was something that only I knew that would be true. This was information published in multiple outlets, not to mention the lengthy discussion here, so I figured that it was relatively common knowledge with the folks here and that is why I was surprised by the attendance of folks.

[mdt]

Thank you. A voice of reason almost lost in the overwhelming din.

[A shot at me?]

[Waitman]

I'd like to say a few words regarding "judging," first, in general and second as regards DR and this discussion.

Judging is fine. Indeed, important. I'm not speaking of matters of taste ("you actually like Buco de Beppo -- you're dead to me") or snobbery ("what the hell does a 24-year-old legal assistant know about food? Get back in your corner, baby"). And I'm not speaking about sweeping moral judgments based on a single act or opinion or two ("people who eat Florida tomatoes are killing the earth and should be shunned -- in the Amish sense -- because their soul is dead). I'm speaking of applying considered ethical opinions within the context of the culinary world to the actions individuals -- either members or not -- that either do or do not comport with those opinions.

There are any number of ethical considerations related to food, from torturing ducks to fatten their liver, to subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup to patronizing chefs who steal from their employees. It would seem that a forum like this is an ideal place to discuss those issues, sometimes in a heated fashion. In doing so, we naturally -- implicitly or explicitly -- judge those whose actions either do or do not comport with our ethical stand. If I passionately defend locavorism, I am certainly judging you for eating Chilean plums, whether I say so or not. It's impossible to have an ethical discussion without implying judgment.

But I would go one step further. Unless we move from the abstract to the personal, the discussion is less meaningful. It is by considering one's own actions in light of others' judgments that we, perhaps, learn and grow or learn to understand and defend our own opinions more fully. It's all well and good to consider labor relations in the abstract. It's not until we consider our place in those relations that we do or do not change our actions and, perhaps, in doing so, change things for the better.

This is and should be a forum for the exchange of all relevant ideas -- not just those ideas that don't make people uncomfortable. And, if you don't want to be "judged" don't comment.

That being said, I think that some people doth protest too much. No one called anyone (except themselves) a monster or attacked anyone viciously. Points were made and countered, information exchanged and opinions -- ahem, "judgments" -- expressed. As someone who whored themselves out for the DR special, but afterwards felt a little unclean, it was interesting for me to read the various opinions and I intend to go forth and sin no more. I may even have learned something. That's what we're here for, right?

And, as an aside, it should be pointed out that it is impossible to say "you're judging me" without sounding like teenage girl arguing with her mom about being grounded. If you are judged for committing an act with ethical implications, either defend it or repent.

[agm]

If it was something that only I knew that would be true. This was information published in multiple outlets, not to mention the lengthy discussion here, so I figured that it was relatively common knowledge with the folks here and that is why I was surprised by the attendance of folks.

I am a fan of many sports. I follow some casually, some intently. I read several sports-related websites daily. I even compete, poorly, in one fairly obscure sport. I live in a city with a team in each of the major sports leagues, and it's currently baseball season. Coverage of baseball is extensive, online, on TV, in print, on the radio, etc. If an athlete sneezes it's covered, and the depth of detail easily available about financial transactions is astonishing. Yet I have never seen the Nationals play, don't know their record, or even if they're decent or terrible this year. I can name only one player, and nobody in management. Multiple outlets, lengthy discussions, and common knowledge do not mean that everyone is paying attention.

[MikeLastort]

I went to G3 for happy hour tonight, and my wife and I are going there for dinner tomorrow.

Roberto and Nancy are two of the nicest people I have ever met in my life. They have my full and unconditional support.

[Keithstg]

This is and should be a forum for the exchange of all relevant ideas -- not just those ideas that don't make people uncomfortable. And, if you don't want to be "judged" don't comment.

That being said, I think that some people doth protest too much. No one called anyone (except themselves) a monster or attacked anyone viciously. Points were made and countered, information exchanged and opinions -- ahem, "judgments" -- expressed. As someone who whored themselves out for the DR special, but afterwards felt a little unclean, it was interesting for me to read the various opinions and I intend to go forth and sin no more. I may even have learned something. That's what we're here for, right?

And, as an aside, it should be pointed out that it is impossible to say "you're judging me" without sounding like teenage girl arguing with her mom about being grounded. If you are judged for committing an act with ethical implications, either defend it or repent.

Well said, sir.

[Skipper10]

This evening six of us feasted on crabs & beer, at The Reliable Source, a Press Club eatery which is located on 14th Street NW, kitty corner from G3. On the way back to the garage we walked by G3. Our friends knew the name - Roberto Donna - and associated it with amazing but expensive meals they heard of, but have never had. Because they don't read FOOD section and follow other kinds of news they had no idea about RD's problems. " What is wrong?" asked the first person who reached the window, "What's wrong?" asked every one in our group after looking in inside the restaurant. All the tables were set with white tablecloths and wine glasses and plates and silverware, but there was only one person in dark suit seated at one of the tables, and two servers? were standing by his side. We could see several people doing nothing, just standing in the kitchen. Someone, who looked like RD from the distance was standing immobile like a Buddha with a grim face (I know it is an oxymoron) in the tiny doorway between kitchen and the dining room. It was 9:06 PM.

It was so sad, as if we were looking at an extremely talented artist committing hare kiri infront of our eyes, albeit without a knife, which is probably much more painful. I tried to think of artists who inflicted premature death upon themselves, but the ones I remembered did it for their passion for art or for principles, not $$$$$.

I must confess I was shaken by seeing RD(if it was RD) standing like that. Doing absolutely nothing.

At this point it seems to me that it does not really matter what each one of us thinks about what RD did or did not do, whether we have eaten his food or not, it is all immaterial. Regardless of how we feel about it, we are all witnessing (for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) the dismantling of a true artist.

[Chris Cunningham]

When we ate there last year, we specifically asked about those cameras and were told they were installed by request of the US Secret Service. Further, that the Chef had "friends in the administration" who regularly or semi-regularly would be coming in and "felt more comfortable" if the folks with the dark glasses and earbuds could keep tabs on things downstairs (the VIP room is upstairs) via video monitors. Didn't know what to make of that then and definitely don't know what to make of it with all that's now known. But, safe to say installing that kind of system isn't something all (most?) restaurants do and surely it added significant cost to the restaurant's buildout. Guess that's where some of the revenue has gone. Haven't noticed high-end video equipment like that at Ray's Hellburger but didn't Obama go there with the Russian president and Biden?

Those cameras were not put there at the request of the Secret Service...........they were put there by the owners and had feeds to their home computers and Italy.

[darkstar965]

I'd like to say a few words regarding "judging," first, in general and second as regards DR and this discussion.

Judging is fine. Indeed, important...If I passionately defend locavorism, I am certainly judging you for eating Chilean plums, whether I say so or not. It's impossible to have an ethical discussion without implying judgment.

But I would go one step further. Unless we move from the abstract to the personal, the discussion is less meaningful. It is by considering one's own actions in light of others' judgments that we, perhaps, learn and grow or learn to understand and defend our own opinions more fully. It's all well and good to consider labor relations in the abstract. It's not until we consider our place in those relations that we do or do not change our actions and, perhaps, in doing so, change things for the better.

This is and should be a forum for the exchange of all relevant ideas -- not just those ideas that don't make people uncomfortable. And, if you don't want to be "judged" don't comment.

That being said, I think that some people doth protest too much. No one called anyone (except themselves) a monster or attacked anyone viciously. Points were made and countered, information exchanged and opinions -- ahem, "judgments" -- expressed. As someone who whored themselves out for the DR special, but afterwards felt a little unclean, it was interesting for me to read the various opinions and I intend to go forth and sin no more. I may even have learned something. That's what we're here for, right?

I appreciate this, Waitman. Very thoughtful. I read it twice, considered it carefully and think you make some good points of which I'll be mindful when judging or considering others' judgments in the future. That said, I'll of course take an opportunity to disagree with some of it here--the parts above which I've excerpted. And, also of course as is my way (or at least my omnipresent aspiration), I'll do it constructively simply because I think that's more useful, as I'll explain.

To me, there's a difference between 1: judging an idea or even an action and 2: judging a specific person. The former <1> is constructive, often provocative, compassionate and often productive. The latter <2>, especially when uninformed as has been the case recently on this thread, is reasonably taken by many to be ignorant (definitionally true), vitriolic (this is a matter of personal opinion) or divisive (also a matter of personal opinion). One woman's "vicious" is another man's innocuous. So and so can't even consider the issue at hand because they're so offended. And so on.

Personally, I don't accept the notion that "moving from the abstract to the personal" or, what I'll shorthand as personal attacks (however innocent or vicious) are an effective path to prompting introspection or changing minds. Rather, I think rational adults will reflect with open minds naturally when considering different and opposing views about ideas or issues that pertain to them if they're not angry or offended. If I have any constructive (or productive) purpose with a statement or an opinion--to change minds, to inform, etc--it doesn't serve my aims to offend someone. It also doesn't make for stronger relationships and stronger communities IMHO.

It's a different approach altogether to spitefully, ignorantly and pompously imply or state that someone or some people are heartless idiotic sellouts (my words but I think representative of some of the posts here) than to simply make a logical case that patronizing g3 is wrong with supporting rationale. The former is an ad hominen attack much less likely to persuade or engage than to enrage. The latter, focused on any issue, whether or not ethical, is more likely to prompt more people to consider, reflect, learn and perhaps even change which you yourself identify as worthy goals. Heather's post from December and Tim Carman's article this week are both super, factual opinion pieces that I'm quite sure changed many minds.

Communities, whether online or offline are more productive with strengthening relationships and weaker with forces that divide and offend. We're all human. This is core to debate strategy. I don't have to insult or attack you to persuade or inform you. In fact, though we're all different and you may be an exception, I'm simply much less likely to engage, persuade or inform if I'm focused on you rather than on the topic. The "disagree without being disagreeable" cliche serves well. That's the point I think. Judging isn't always "fine." I think it best when focused on issue, topic or question rather than on person(s) about whom little may be known.

[darkstar965]

I went to G3 for happy hour tonight, and my wife and I are going there for dinner tomorrow.

Roberto and Nancy are two of the nicest people I have ever met in my life. They have my full and unconditional support.

Thanks Mike Lastort. If for nothing else than for taking a position totally at odds with anyone else on the thread. Things were getting a bit dull and repetitive. As someone who wrote "to each his own" in an earlier post, I'm glad to have a different perspective which, taking a page from waitman's book, might prompt some new thinking, learning or what have you.

So, taking the bait, I'll ask the obvious question simply for clarification and better understanding. I'm not at all put off by what you've written. Rather, I'm very curious. How do you reconcile your effusive praise for Roberto Donna with the trail of misdeeds and harm that is now a matter of repetitive public and legal record spanning many years and at least three different restaurants? How is it that you see folks who've clearly harmed innocents over and over again as "the nicest people [you] have ever met in [your] life?" Thanks for considering this question and perhaps, explaining a bit more.

[Tujague]

At this point it seems to me that it does not really matter what each one of us thinks about what RD did or did not do, whether we have eaten his food or not, it is all immaterial. Regardless of how we feel about it, we are all witnessing (for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) the dismantling of a true artist.

Thanks for this; it helps me to express why it is that I chose to take advantage of G3's DR.com offer. I can't plead ignorance of Donna's problems; I went in with eyes more or less wide open. But I'd never had a chance to eat at any of his finest restaurants (I did have one meal at the short-lived Vivo), and I wanted a chance to taste the work of someone who had so often been lifted up as a culinary artist, not least of all on this board. I figured it was probably my last and best opportunity before what seemed to be the inevitable downfall. It seemed less like a moral dilemma than a calculated risk. And I did indeed get a glimpse of what I'd so often heard about, though it was by no means a perfect meal.

For some, that may seem an inadequate explanation. Yeah, I suppose I whored myself out, too, as Waitman so aptly put it. If I have seemed defensive about this, for myself and others, perhaps its because of my own ambivalence. Would I do it again? No. But I don't feel any particular remorse, either.

And Waitman's points about the nature of judgment are well taken as well. Where I might take exception or expand on those comments is that I think such moral deliberation usually best takes place within the context of relationship and community. Some may feel that here in ways that others do not--when the relationship feels ambiguous or nonexistent (or virtual?), you're less likely to grant critics the status they seem to want to assume. And that's in part because moral choice is in fact so personal, even if it does have communal impacts, and so often fraught with more ambiguity and ambivalence than we want to admit. Judgment is inevitable, and necessary, as Waitman notes. The 14-yr.-old girl is likely trying to establish her own identity and pull back from relationship; the adults on this board are, in our (mostly) anonymity, trying to figure out what entails relationship in this environment.

[Escoffier]

[A shot at me?]

Nope. Not at all. Just a bit of respect for someone stepping back and looking at things quietly.

[johnb]

As someone who enjoyed Roberto's cooking and personality in days gone by, but no longer has the option to patronize his place (now living as I do far away), I have been reading this thread with interest, and some bewilderment.

This is a food board. But this topic has now sailed deeply into the area of ethics and morality, which I'm not convinced is a sea that the board is equipped to comfortably navigate.

But rather than add my own take on ethics and morals, if I may, I'd like to pose some questions:

Could it not be that what we have here is a cultural clash? Every culture has its particular ways of getting things done, that are embedded in a set of formal and informal rules. Sometimes these seem strange to others. But always part of that set of rules are work-arounds that preserve every participant's place and help insure everybody comes out whole in that particular social context. Roberto grew up in another society and business culture, where behavior that is condemned here is not only expected but is part of the fabric of life. The adherence of small businesses to paying their taxes is one example. He appears to have surrounded himself with individuals who also grew up in that culture, and has excluded those who may have been better equipped to understand and operate successfully/ethically/morally in the context where he is operating. It is always the case that transferring one set of rules into a different culture leads to problems, among which is that the work-arounds aren't available to keep things within the established social bounds and running smoothly. Could that not be what has happened here? I don't know the answer. Nor am I saying this would justify what he has actually done. Clearly there are many individuals in the restaurant business who have successfully made the cultural transition. But it may add some explanatory power to the discussion, and it may bear on any judgement of his behavior from a legal standpoint as distinguished from a moral standpoint.

I would also pose a question about the best response by those who are concerned with his employees. There seems to be some consensus that not patronizing the place is the correct response. But could it not also be a reasonable response, for the sake of the employees, to go ahead and dine there, but make it a point to tip generously and in a way that helps insure where the money goes? This is clearly not a practical approach for the long term, but is it immoral and unethical?

It seems to me that, for folks like us who are interested in food and dining and who dine out a lot, to plunge into questions of morality and ethics related to the restaurant business is treacherous at best. How many don't eat at Chinese restaurants, for example, because the help in the kitchen, imported from rural China, is likely working 15 hour days and being paid slave wages, as is often the case? Or for that matter have "boycotted" that little French place on the corner because the kitchen help is mostly illegals who would be overjoyed to get minimum wage? Piling into Roberto may be justified, but if it is it would seem there are many other opportunities out there for similar outrage that get a pass.

[thetrain]

the dismantling of a true [con] artist.

sorry couldn't resist.

But could it not also be a reasonable response, for the sake of the employees, to go ahead and dine there, but make it a point to tip generously and in a way that helps insure where the money goes? This is clearly not a practical approach for the long term, but is it immoral and unethical?

That might work at Galileo, but Donna and company have stole tips as well (according to affidavits in the federal case - most legal documents are available here) so its not a sure thing.

[xdcx]

It seems to me that, for folks like us who are interested in food and dining and who dine out a lot, to plunge into questions of morality and ethics related to the restaurant business is treacherous at best. How many don't eat at Chinese restaurants, for example, because the help in the kitchen, imported from rural China, is likely working 15 hour days and being paid slave wages, as is often the case? Or for that matter have "boycotted" that little French place on the corner because the kitchen help is mostly illegals who would be overjoyed to get minimum wage? Piling into Roberto may be justified, but if it is it would seem there are many other opportunities out there for similar outrage that get a pass.

If it's a known fact and/or folks are convicted then why wouldn't they be treated the same? It's not like RD is being singled out because people have a grudge against him. What better place would there be to talk about the morality and ethics of the restaurant business than a food board full of people who eat out a a lot and restaurateurs? Who better to talk about it than people who care enough to post on message boards about their meals?

[B.A.R.]

.......talk about the morality and ethics of the restaurant business....

The morality and ethics of how G3 operates have nothing to do with the ethics and morality of restauranteurs in general.

[xdcx]

The morality and ethics of how G3 operates have nothing to do with the ethics and morality of restauranteurs in general.

Didn't say it did, but if something similar happened involving someone else should we not talk about it because some don't believe this is the right forum for that conversation?

[apicius]

If it's a known fact and/or folks are convicted then why wouldn't they be treated the same? It's not like RD is being singled out because people have a grudge against him. What better place would there be to talk about the morality and ethics of the restaurant business than a food board full of people who eat out a a lot and restaurateurs? Who better to talk about it than people who care enough to post on message boards about their meals?

You can add the well-known chef asking their kitchen staff to work 50 or 60 hours and clock only 40 hours!!!

There are quite a lot of those.

I was not easy in the kitchen but I always paid my employees what they worked for.

[johnb]

The morality and ethics of how G3 operates have nothing to do with the ethics and morality of restauranteurs in general.

That may be true, but I think one could make a strong argument that it isn't. Either way, there would seem to be a moral and ethical inconsistency on the part of the customer who "boycotts" a particular place for something, anything, but ignores much the same thing elsewhere.

[johnb]

If it's a known fact and/or folks are convicted then why wouldn't they be treated the same? It's not like RD is being singled out because people have a grudge against him.

I think that my example is, in fact, a widely known fact. And my own observation, FWIW, is that few if any "boycott" those places for those reasons. As such, this may illustrate that there are some inconsistencies buried in this discussion.

What better place would there be to talk about the morality and ethics of the restaurant business than a food board full of people who eat out a a lot and restaurateurs? Who better to talk about it than people who care enough to post on message boards about their meals?

I didn't say we shouldn't get into it, I said it is treacherous waters. We all think we understand ethics and morality perfectly well, me included I suppose, though few of us probably even have been exposed to something as simple as Ethics 101 in college. Many philosophers have given their lives to study of these questions without coming to hard-and-fast conclusions. The truth is ethics and moral judgements are full of traps for the unwary. We can certainly discuss it, but posting on a message board about our meals doesn't strike me as a qualifying me or anyone to make actionable ethical judgements. Put another way, anybody can and should do what feels correct to him. But to advise others, and particularly to think ill of others who reach a different judgement, is going a step beyond. JMHO.

[xdcx]

I think that my example is, in fact, a widely known fact. And my own observation, FWIW, is that few if any "boycott" those places for those reasons. As such, this may illustrate that there are some inconsistencies buried in this discussion.

your examples were non specific what if's, not concrete examples. So unless the folks running it are known to be good upstanding citizens, we should just assume that everywhere is shady and avoid them all and anything short of that would be hypocritical?

[goodeats]

Hm, we're getting a little "Irene" here.