Oscar Imagines a Dire Fate

Oscar imagines with precision the minute before his execution. He

steps off the ladder on to the scaffold. Around him

crowds are shouting, yelling — ten thousand faces, twenty thousand eyes.

Oscar’s brain is especially active, and works incessantly — hard, hard,

hard — like an engine at full pressure. Various thoughts beat

loud and fast through his head — all unfinished ones, and

strange.  He wants to mine every remembered second for its

every nuance, to sift through the mountains of ones and

zeros for every sensation that he can enlarge, dissect deconstruct.

In the final moments he knows, sees and understands everything.

________________________________________________________

Paraphrases from the novels The Idiot by Feodor Dostoevsky and Mailman by J. Robert Lennon.

Advertisements

Nice Message from Psychologist

Dear Mr. Freedman,

Thank you for your inquiry.  I wish that I could offer to work with you but there are 2 impediments to doing so: one is that due to my schedule I am not able to accept any new patients right now and the other is that I am not a Medicaid or Medicare provider.  From your description, you sound like a very interesting person who is clearly highly motivated to understand himself better and work hard on addressing his difficulties.  I am sorry that I am not in a position where I could work with you to do that.

My best,

Michael L. Krass, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
(703) 538-3400

300 N. Washington Street
Suite 302C
Falls Church, VA 22046

1555 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 401
Washington, DC 20036

I’m Like the Flu Virus: I Adapt to the Vaccines

TO THE NEW YORK POST TIP LINE:

—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: tips <tips@nypost.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 19, 2018 8:55 pm
Subject: criminal complaint

Snarky message from Michael Cohen’s lawyer.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Ryan, Stephen <SRyan@mwe.com>
To: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 1:53 pm
Subject: RE: criminal complaint

Your communications to me are unwelcome.
Please do not email me again.

Stephen M. Ryan
Partner
McDermott Will & Emery LLP | The McDermott Building | 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. | Washington, DC 20001
Tel +1 202 756 8333 | Mobile +1 202 251 5343 | Fax +1 202 756 8087
Biography | Website | vCard | Email | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog

From: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@aim.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:34 PM
To: Ryan, Stephen
Subject: criminal complaint

Mr. Ryan:

I thought the latest on my case might interest you.

Gary Freedman, Esq.
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: special.counsel <special.counsel@usdoj.gov>
Sent: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 1:18 pm
Subject: criminal complaint
To the Office of Special Counsel:

I transmit the attachment as peripheral to your mandate. It is a criminal complaint I will be sending to the FBI Washington Field Office (Andrew Vale) today, March 13, 2018. The complaint documents the fact that John Dowd’s former law partners at Akin Gump — including xxxxx, Esq. (who recently represented Mr. Dowd in an unrelated civil matter, Rose v. Dowd) — are racketeers. I believe Mr. Dowd might have information about the matters described in the complaint that could assist the FBI. There is an even greater chance that xxxxx, Esq. has information about me that could assist the FBI. As you know Mr. Dowd is President Trump’s attorney. It ill behooves the President’s attorney to fail to assist the FBI in a criminal matter.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

TO THE NEW YORK TIMES TIP LINE:

—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: tips <tips@nytimes.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2018 1:24 pm
Subject: criminal complaint

Snarky message from Michael Cohen’s lawyer.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Ryan, Stephen <SRyan@mwe.com>
To: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 1:53 pm
Subject: RE: criminal complaint

Your communications to me are unwelcome.
Please do not email me again.

Stephen M. Ryan
Partner
McDermott Will & Emery LLP | The McDermott Building | 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. | Washington, DC 20001
Tel +1 202 756 8333 | Mobile +1 202 251 5343 | Fax +1 202 756 8087
Biography | Website | vCard | Email | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog

From: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@aim.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:34 PM
To: Ryan, Stephen
Subject: criminal complaint

Mr. Ryan:

I thought the latest on my case might interest you.

Gary Freedman, Esq.
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: special.counsel <special.counsel@usdoj.gov>
Sent: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 1:18 pm
Subject: criminal complaint
To the Office of Special Counsel:

I transmit the attachment as peripheral to your mandate. It is a criminal complaint I will be sending to the FBI Washington Field Office (Andrew Vale) today, March 13, 2018. The complaint documents the fact that John Dowd’s former law partners at Akin Gump — including xxxxx, Esq. (who recently represented Mr. Dowd in an unrelated civil matter, Rose v. Dowd) — are racketeers. I believe Mr. Dowd might have information about the matters described in the complaint that could assist the FBI. There is an even greater chance that xxxxx, Esq. has information about me that could assist the FBI. As you know Mr. Dowd is President Trump’s attorney. It ill behooves the President’s attorney to fail to assist the FBI in a criminal matter.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

I Got a “Thank You” from Mark Zaid, Esq. — Interesting — He Represents Whistle Blowers. What does that tell you?

—–Original Message—–
From: Mark Zaid
To: Gary Freedman
Sent: Thu, Apr 12, 2018 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: criminal complaint

Thank you.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 4:56 PM Gary Freedman wrote:
Mr. Zaid,

I thought you’d find this interesting.

Gary Freedman, Esq.
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Freedman
To: special.counsel
Sent: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 1:18 pm
Subject: criminal complaint

To the Office of Special Counsel:

I transmit the attachment as peripheral to your mandate. It is a criminal complaint I will be sending to the FBI Washington Field Office (Andrew Vale) today, March 13, 2018. The complaint documents the fact that John Dowd’s former law partners at Akin Gump — including xxxx, Esq. (who recently represented Mr. Dowd in an unrelated civil matter, Rose v. Dowd) — are racketeers. I believe Mr. Dowd might have information about the matters described in the complaint that could assist the FBI. There is an even greater chance that xxxx, Esq. has information about me that could assist the FBI. As you know Mr. Dowd is President Trump’s attorney. It ill behooves the President’s attorney to fail to assist the FBI in a criminal matter.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

http://www.markzaid.com

Zaid represents the good guys. Stephen Ryan represents the bad guys. Think about it!!

email Message from Michael Cohen’s Lawyer — I Ruffled his Feathers

—–Original Message—–
From: Ryan, Stephen
To: Gary Freedman
Sent: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 1:53 pm
Subject: RE: criminal complaint

Your communications to me are unwelcome.

Please do not email me again.

Stephen M. Ryan
Partner

McDermott Will & Emery LLP | The McDermott Building | 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. | Washington, DC 20001
Tel +1 202 756 8333 | Mobile +1 202 251 5343 | Fax +1 202 756 8087

Biography | Website | vCard | Email | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog

From: Gary Freedman [mailto:garfreed@aim.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:34 PM
To: Ryan, Stephen
Subject: criminal complaint

Mr. Ryan:

I thought the latest on my case might interest you.

Gary Freedman, Esq.
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Freedman
To: special.counsel
Sent: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 1:18 pm
Subject: criminal complaint

To the Office of Special Counsel:

I transmit the attachment as peripheral to your mandate. It is a criminal complaint I will be sending to the FBI Washington Field Office (Andrew Vale) today, March 13, 2018. The complaint documents the fact that John Dowd’s former law partners at Akin Gump — including xxxxx, Esq. (who recently represented Mr. Dowd in an unrelated civil matter, Rose v. Dowd) — are racketeers. I believe Mr. Dowd might have information about the matters described in the complaint that could assist the FBI. There is an even greater chance that xxxx, Esq. has information about me that could assist the FBI. As you know Mr. Dowd is President Trump’s attorney. It ill behooves the President’s attorney to fail to assist the FBI in a criminal matter.

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

“It ill behooves the President’s attorney to fail to assist the FBI in a criminal matter.”  — Think about it!!  

I have sent out tons of emails.  Only three other people have previously told me to desist from sending them emails:  Earl L. Segal, Esq.  and Michael J. Madigan, Esq. (two Akin Gump partners) as well as Mark Eiglarsh, Esq.

psychotherapy resources

Outside Therapy Resources for Clients:

  • Washington Hospital Outpatient Medical Counseling Center (OMCC): 202-877-6321
    • Provides traditional outpatient psychotherapy to individuals, couples and families experiencing many problems, including depression, anxiety, bereavement and stress management.
    • Treatment is conducted by licensed clinical psychologists and licensed clinical social workers.
    • Two weekly groups are offered: An anxiety group on Tuesdays from 3 to 4 p.m. and a depression group on Thursdays from 3 to 4 p.m.
  • Hayes Senior Wellness Center Part of the Senior Service Network Sponsored By The District of Columbia Office On Aging (DCOA)
    • MissionOur mission is to promote physical, social and emotional well-being through comprehensive programs and activities that include: physical exercise, nutrition education and counseling, health education, health promotion, medication management, and smoking cessation which all lead to a healthy lifestyle.
    • Programs Offered: Aerobics Exercise, Weight Lifting, Yoga, Line Dancing, Hand Dancing, Daily Lunch, Dental Screening, Memory Screening, Blood Pressure Screening, Cataract and Glaucoma Screenings, Medication Brown Bag, Computer Classes, Massage Therapy, Crochet Lessons and Jewelry Making, Trips, Classes on food choices, portion control, reading labels, navigating the grocery store, and more…
    • Location and Hours of Operation:
      • 500 K ST. NE
        Washington, DC 20002
        Monday-Friday, 8:30-4:30
        (202) 727-0357
  • The Women’s Center
    • The Women’s Center provides easy access to highly trained professionals and therapists, and we ensure a high level of counseling and care to communities in the metropolitan area, at our two locations in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC. We accept most major insurance plans and offer flexible payment options and reduced fees for clients in financial need.
      • Mental Health, Individual, couples and family counseling, Domestic violence counseling, EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), Support and therapy groups, Separation & Divorce – Counseling, Financial Advising & Mediation, Psychological Assessments, Career Services, Workshops, Financial counseling
    • Make an Appointment in Vienna, VA or Washington, DC: Email appointments@thewomenscenter.org or call (703) 281-2657, ext. 266, to make an appointment or request more information about counseling in our Vienna, VA office. For appointments in our DC office, please call (202) 293-4580.
  • The Washington School of Psychiatry
    • As part of the Treatment Center’s commitment to offer services to a broad spectrum of the community, fees may use a sliding scale so that access to mental health services is not impeded by financial constraints. Treatment Center clinicians are experienced in working with a diverse clientele and with a broad range of clinical issues.
    • Phone and fax for Treatment Center inquiries: 202-537-6050
    • Treatment Options: Psychiatric Services, Medication Management, Individual Psychotherapy, Group Therapy (various types of group therapy are offered, please call for more information), Couples Therapy, Family Therapy, Mother and Baby Group Therapy, Parent Counseling, Psychoanalysis, Psychological Testing
    • Therapy Sessions may be scheduled for Monday through Friday from 8AM to 8PM, Saturday from 9AM to 1PM.
  • George Washington University
    • The Center Clinic: 1922 F Street, NW Suite #103 Washington, DC 20052
      • (202) 994‐4937
      • Monday-Thursday: 9:00 am – 8:00 pm, Friday: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm
    • The Art Therapy Clinic: 1925 Ballenger Ave # 250 Alexandria, VA 22314
      • (703) 299 4173
  • The Perry Center
    • 128 M Street NW, Washington DC, 20001
      • (202) 312-7140
    • “At the Perry Center, licensed social workers and care managers help families and individuals overcome crises and chronic problems through counseling, parenting, emergency assistance, housing and day care assistance, and other services”
  • Crawford Counseling Center
    • 2412 Minnesota Ave Suite 303 SE Washington, DC 20019
      • (202) 688-3580
    • Clinical Services:  The following services can be offered both in the home and in the office. These clinical services are designed to better assist individuals and families in adapting and coping with life’s challenges… Individual Therapy, Family Therapy, Relationship Counseling/Marriage Counseling, Group Therapy, Psychological Services, Psychiatric Services
    • This clinic accepts DC Medicare and Medicaid

The Psychoanalytic Meaning of a Parable?

village

In 1990 I wrote a parable about my problems in the workplace. The parable centered on a peripatetic American moving from Albanian village to Albanian village.

http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2006/12/parable.html

I had a thought about the meaning of the parable that had eluded me before.

I think it might be useful to view the Albanians as representing my mother and her family. The fact that the Albanian nightmare is inescapable for me suggests my sense of my mother — and my mother’s sister and mother — as engulfing and aversive.   I couldn’t escape them.

The Americans represent the Jews, and the Second American represents my father.

I see in the plight of the First American suggestions of Kohut’s case of Mr. U.

Mr. U turned away from the unreliable empathy of his mother and tried to gain confirmation of his self through an idealizing relationship with his father. The self -absorbed father, however, unable to respond appropriately, rebuffed his son’s attempt to be close to him, depriving him of the needed merger with the idealized selfobject and, hence, of the opportunity for gradually recognizing the selfobject’s shortcomings. Cowan, Self and Sexuality at 59.

The psychoanalyst I was seeing at the time didn’t see this or even bother looking for psychoanalytic meaning of the writing.  He focused on my practicing law as a way out for me.

letters to holder

June 8, 1995 (rev’d 6/11/95)
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
Of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

The following chronology highlights milestones in the above-referenced matter, and is offered for your general information.

You will observe that by simply reconfiguring the Findings of Fact made by the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DOHR), absurdities in the findings emerge, including the strikingly bizarre implication that I was actually unemployable at the time Akin Gump hired me, in June 1988, but that firm management did not determine that I was mentally disabled and unemployable until more than three years later, in late October 1991.

1. Finding of Fact 4(a) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable on about March 4, 1988. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. As of March 4, 1988 I was employed at Akin Gump in the capacity of an agency-supplied temporary legal assistant.

2. Finding of Fact 2(b) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable some time in about May 1988. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. As of May 1988 I was employed at Akin Gump in the capacity of an agency-supplied temporary legal assistant.

3. Finding of Fact 1 reflects that I was hired by Akin Gump as a temporary legal assistant in June 1988 (specifically, June 13, 1988). See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

4. Finding of Fact 4(c) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable some time in mid-June 1988. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

5. Finding of Fact 2 reflects that I received an above-average or outstanding performance evaluation in the fall of 1988 for work quality and professional conduct in the previous six-month period. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

6. Finding of Fact 4(d) reflects the determination that I had a series of paranoid ideas of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable beginning in late March 1989. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. The series of paranoid ideas of reference concerned another employee (Stacey Schaar) who, reportedly, was later terminated for gross misconduct, in about May 1990. See Petitioner’s Reply at Attachment G, at p. 6

7. Finding of Fact 2 reflects that I received an above-average or outstanding performance evaluation in the spring of 1989 for work quality and professional conduct in the previous six-month period. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

8. Finding of Fact 1 reflects that Akin Gump hired me as a full-time employee with benefits on August 1, 1989. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

9. Finding of Fact 2 reflects that I received an above-average or outstanding performance evaluation in the fall of 1989 for work quality and professional conduct in the previous six-month period. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. The performance evaluation states in part, with specific reference to my interpersonal skills: “Gary recently trained and supervised five temporary coders who were brought in to expedite the coding of some 200,000 pages of document production. In doing so, he inspired the group who were always eager to work and adopted Gary’s own sense of commitment to the case.” (Constance M. Brown, 11/6/89).

10. Alleged Mental Status as of March 1990: “During his transition form a legal assistant position (paralegal) to his work with the litigation support department [in March 1990], Claimant had several discussions with his direct supervisor [Christine Robertson (“Robertson”)] about problems with interacting with co-workers and occasional outbursts.” See Akin Gump Response to Particulars (attachment A), at paragraph 3A (p. 5). Presumably, according to Akin Gump, my conduct remained intermittently violent and disruptive for the remaining 19 months of my tenure. My personnel file does not include a record of any oral or written reprimands. See Akin Gump Response, at Attachment H.

11. Finding of Fact 4(e) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference–concerning my direct supervisor, Robertson–indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment and unemployable on about March 30, 1990. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. I reported this incident to attorney managers Dennis M. Race (“Race”) and Malcolm Lassman (“Lassman”), on October 24, 1991.

12. Finding of Fact 2 reflects that I received an above-average or outstanding performance evaluation in the Spring of 1990 for work quality and professional conduct in the previous six-month period. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. The performance evaluation dated June 11, 1990–prepared by Constance M. Brown and reviewed by Robertson–does not reflect any discussions with my supervisor in March 1990 concerning problems with interacting with co-workers and/or occasional outbursts, as alleged by Akin Gump in the Response. See Akin Gump Response to Particulars, at paragraph 3A (p. 5).

13. Finding of Fact 4(j) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable some time in 1990. See DOHR Initial Determination dated June 30, 1993.

15. Finding of Fact 4(f) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference–concerning my direct supervisor, Robertson–indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable some time in April 1991. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. I reported this incident to attorney managers Race and Lassman, on October 24, 1991.

16. Finding of Fact 2 reflects that I received an above-average or outstanding performance evaluation in the spring of 1991 for work quality and professional conduct in the previous six-month period. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. The performance evaluation contains the following comments: “Gary seems as close to the perfect employee as it is possible to get!” “He is reliable, hard-working and extremely responsible.” (Robertson, May 1991).

17. Finding of Fact 4(g) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder–concerning my direct supervisor, Robertson–that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable some time in the summer of 1991. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. I reported this incident to attorney managers Race and Lassman, on October 24, 1991.

18. In July 1991, my direct supervisor, Robertson, called a meeting of three of the black employees under her supervision, including a litigation support employee, Patricia A. McNeil, (“McNeil”) and asked them if they thought she was prejudiced against blacks. She explained that her black male receptionist had accused her of being prejudiced against blacks and she wanted to know whether they shared that view. All three employees responded in the affirmative and provided her the reasons they felt that way, giving her examples of the way she treated blacks differently than whites. McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, D.C.D.C. No. 93-0477, Complaint for Damages, paragraph 12. Appended as Attachment C to Petitioner’s Petition for Reconsideration, filed with DOHR on July 27, 1993.

19. Finding of Fact 4(h) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable some time in about early August 1991. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

20. Finding of Fact 4(I) reflects the determination that I had a paranoid idea of reference indicative of a severe mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable on October 2, 1991. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

21. Finding of Fact 4 reflects the determination that I met with attorney managers Earl L. Segal (“Segal”) (on October 23, 1991) and Race and Lassman (on October 24, 1991) to report a variety of incidents that I believed constituted unlawful harassment See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993. Three of the reported incidents concerned my direct supervisor, Robertson Findings of Fact 4(e); 4(f); and 4(g)).

22. On October 29, 1991 I was advised by Race that the firm had decided to terminate my employment, effective immediately. The reasons given for the termination were that (1) Race had investigated my allegations of harassment and was unable to substantiate them (Race had spoken with various of my co-workers, presumably including black co-workers, in the litigation support department supervised by Robertson [see Finding of Fact 5, DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993]); (2) there was a lack of fit between me and other firm personnel; (3) my work was of poor quality [see Petitioner’s Reply at Attachment M]; (4) my requested transfer to the firm’s legal assistant program [see Akin Gump Response at Attachment E] could not be effectuated because the legal assistant administrative staff stated to Race that they were afraid of me, found me difficult to work with, and could not work with me. Race also stated the he had discussed the matter of my termination with two (unidentified) outside consultants who concurred in the decision to terminate; I assumed at the time that these consultants were experts in employee relations, and not mental health professionals. The firm’s personnel record lists the following as persons recommending termination: Christine Robertson, Laurel Digweed, and Dennis M. Race. See Akin Gump Response at Attachment H.

23. On February 4, 1992 I filed an unlawful termination Complaint with DOHR, alleging that Akin Gump’s termination was unlawful under the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, Docket No. 92-076-P(N).

24. On April 9, 1992, McNeil, a black co-worker in the firm’s litigation support department supervised by Robertson, was summarily terminated following a disagreement with the firm’s Personnel Administrator, Laurel Digweed. (McNeil later filed a timely unlawful termination complaint with DOHR; reportedly, Akin Gump filed a response to the complaint, submitted by Race and the firm’s managing partner, Laurence J. Hoffman (“Hoffman”)).

25. On May 22, 1992 Akin Gump filed with DOHR its Reponses to Interrogatories and Document Request in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, Docket No. 92-087-P(N). The Response was submitted by Race and Hoffman. Akin Gump alleged that its decision to terminate my employment, effective October 29, 1991, was lawfully based on the determination, reportedly made in consultation with two mental health professionals including a psychiatrist, that my allegations of harassment were the product of a severe paranoid mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent and unable to interact with co-workers.

The Response states that the quality of my work was not an issue in the decision to terminate. See Akin Gump Response to Particulars (Attachment A), paragraph A at p. 5. But see Petitioner’s Reply at Attachment M (memorializing Race’s statements at the termination meeting and later that my work was of poor quality).

The Response omits any reference to the fact that Race had investigated the possibility of promoting me to a legal assistant position following my request to Race and Lassman on October 24, 1991. Segal, however, admits that he investigated the possibility of such a promotion, on the afternoon of October 23, 1991. See Akin Gump Response at Attachment E.

The employer’s recitation of the incidents that I perceived as harassing omits any reference to the three incidents relating to my former direct supervisor Robertson 1/ (i.e., findings of Fact 4(e); 4(f); and 4(g)). See Akin Gump Response to Particulars (Attachment A), at p. 2.

(I had no knowledge of the content of Akin Gump’s Response until DOHR forwarded the document to me, which document I received on December 22, 1992).

26. On January 5, 1993 I filed with DOHR a Reply to Akin Gump’s Response to Interrogatories and Document Request. My Reply listed 10 incidents of harassment, including 3 incidents concerning my former direct supervisor, Robertson. 2/ DOHR later found that I reported each of these incidents to Race and Lassman on October 24, 1991 (see Findings of Fact 4(a) through 4(j), DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993), but that the incidents were not evidence of unlawful harassment; rather the incidents I reported were, according to DOHR, evidence that I suffered from a severe paranoid mental disorder that justified Akin Gump’s termination decision. See DOHR Initial Determination, dated June 30, 1993.

______________________________________________

1/ The employer’s recitation of the incidents (prepared by Race and Hoffman) also omits any reference to harassment involving Stacey Schaar. See paragraph 6 (above) and APPENDIX A (attached herewith). Further the termination chart (presumably prepared by Digweed, or at her direction) listing all terminations by the employer and the reasons therefor during the period January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1991 omits any reference to Stacey Schaar, who was reportedly terminated for gross misconduct in May 1990. See Akin Gump Response at Attachment H.

NOTE THAT IF (1) THE OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE TO STACEY SCHAAR BY RACE AND HOFFMAN IN AKIN GUMP’S RECITATION OF HARASSING INCIDENTS WAS INTENTIONAL AND (2) PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR DIGWEED’S OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE TO SCHAAR IN THE TERMINATION CHART WAS INTENTIONAL, THE SIMULTANEOUS OMISSION SUGGESTS COLLUSION AMONG DIGWEED, HOFFMAN, AND RACE TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE. Compare the gravamen of McNeil’s complaint in McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, D.C.D.C. 93-0477.

2/ Of the ten reported incidents, one involved an employee (Stacey Schaar) who was reportedly later terminated for gross misconduct, and three involved a supervisor (Robertson) later determined by a Federal District Court to have engaged in racially offensive conduct. Thus, four of the ten incidents (40%) involved employees known to engage in serious misconduct. See APPENDIX A, attached herewith.

27. On March 5, 1993 McNeil filed a Complaint for damages in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for redress of injuries sustained as a result of the defendant’s unlawful conduct terminating her employment after 4 ½ years because of her race, McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, D.C.D.C. No. 93-0477. The Complaint alleged that Robertson engaged in a long-standing pattern or practice of racially offensive and discriminatory conduct and that Robertson colluded with Personnel Administrator Digweed in terminating McNeil

28. On September 24, 1993 DOHR dismissed my unlawful termination Complaint for lack of Probable Cause, incorporating DOHR’s Initial Determination issued June 30, 1993.

29. On November 29, 1993 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment for Akin Gump in McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, D.C.D.C. No. 93-0477. The Court found that (1) Akin Gump’s managers (specifically citing Hoffman and Personnel Administrator Digweed) had no knowledge (or reason to know) that Robertson had engaged in racially offensive or discriminatory conduct toward black employees under her supervision and that (2) Robertson had not colluded with Digweed in terminating McNeil. The Court found, however, that Robertson exhibited racial animus toward black employees under her supervision.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: D. Georgopoulos, M.D. [GW Medical Center Department of Psychiatry]

APPENDIX A

CONCORDANCE OF INCIDENTS REPORTED BY EMPLOYER TO DOHR VS. INCIDENTS REPORTED BY FREEDMAN

The following is a verbatim report made by Akin Gump to DOHR of the incidents that I stated to Dennis M. Race and Malcolm Lassman on October 24, 1991. See Akin Gump Response to Particulars (Attachment A), at p. 2. NOTE THAT AKIN GUMP’S LIST CORRESPONDS EXACTLY WITH DOHR’S FINDINGS OF FACT, EXCEPT THAT THE FOUR INCIDENTS INVOLVING ROBERTSON AND SCHAAR–THE TWO PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE ENGAGED IN SERIOUS MISCONDUCT–ARE UNACCOUNTABLY OMITTED IN AKIN GUMP’S RECITAL.

1. An attorney once used the word “sweet” while pouring a cup of coffee from a coffee machine (apparently corresponds to Finding of Fact 4(c));

2. While with a group of co-workers one female employee stated “I bet you have a sexy chest” (apparently corresponds to Finding of Fact 4(a));

3. One evening after business hours, an attorney got on the elevator with him and paced back and forth, looking at Claimant but saying nothing (apparently corresponds to Finding of Fact 4(j));

4, Co-workers in the litigation support group were trying to “make him nervous” (apparently corresponds to Finding of Fact 4(h));

5. A female co-worker stood by him swinging her hips so as to provoke him (apparently corresponds to Finding of Fact 4(I)); and

6. A male co-worker had his eyes fixed to Claimant’s genital area (apparently corresponds to Finding of Fact 4(b));

The following is a list of the incidents that I reported to DOHR as constituting my report of harassment to Lassman and Race on October 24, 1991. DOHR incorporated my report in its findings of fact, but designated my report evidence of paranoia rather than evidence of unlawful harassment.

1. Finding of Fact 4(a) involving unidentified male co-worker “with sexy chest” [see (2.) above];

2. Finding of Fact 4(b) involving Paul Wageman staring at genitals [see (6,) above];

3. Finding of Fact 4(c) involving David Hardee at coffee machine [see (1.) above];

4. Finding of Fact 4(D) involving Stacey Schaar; OMITTED BY EMPLOYER

5. Finding of Fact 4(e) involving Robertson; OMITTED BY EMPLOYER

6. Finding of Fact 4(f) involving Robertson; OMITTED BY EMPLOYER

7. Finding of Fact 4(g) involving Robertson; OMITTED BY EMPLOYER

8. Finding of Fact 4(h) involving co-workers in litigation support group [see (4.) above]

9. Finding of Fact 4(I) involving Katherine Harkness swinging her hips [see (5.) above]

10. Finding of Fact 4(j) involving David Eisenstat on elevator [see (3.) above]

April 24, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for your information is a declaration captioned: Statement of Gary Freedman Regarding Intent to Commit Crime of Violence as Determined by the Law Firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.

I welcome an investigation by the Office of U.S. Attorney into the veracity of the statements contained in the enclosed declaration; I understand that any false statements contained in the document will subject me to possible criminal prosecution.

I am sure that Messrs. Laurence J. Hoffman, Dennis M. Race, and R. Bruce McLean, and other attorneys and staff of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld will cooperate fully in any investigation of issues pertinent to the enclosed declaration.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Secret Service

STATEMENT OF GARY FREEDMAN REGARDING INTENT TO COMMIT CRIME OF VIOLENCE AS DETERMINED BY THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD

WHEREAS I was employed as a legal assistant (“paralegal”) in the Washington office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (“Akin Gump” or “firm”), located at 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036, until October 29, 1991, on which date my employment was involuntarily terminated; and

WHEREAS a former co-worker in the firm’s litigation Support Department (“Department”), Patricia McNeil, advised me in a telephone conversation on the evening of July 1, 1993 that in the period shortly after my job termination, on October 29, 1991, my former direct supervisor, Christine Robertson (“:Robertson”), held a meeting of her employees to advise that I had been terminated, and the supervisor stated that she had arranged with an unidentified employee(s) to have the lock to the Department’s office suite changed because of the supervisor’s feat that I might return to the office with a dangerous or deadly weapon to kill the supervisor or other employees in retaliation for my job termination; and

WHEREAS Robertson was a senior supervisory employee of Akin Gump who reported directly to R. Bruce McLean, a partner and member of the firm’s Management Committee; and

WHEREAS I believe Robertson routinely attended management meetings that were uniformly held on Thursday of each week that were also attended by the firm’s managing partner, Laurence J. Hoffman (“Hoffman”), other management partners, and other senior supervisory employees; and

WHEREAS in the days immediately prior to my job termination, Robertson had several oral and written communications with the partner who terminated my employment, Dennis M. Race (“Race”), regarding the issue of my continued employment with the firm. See Akin Gump Response to Interrogatories and Document Request, Response to Particulars (Attachment A), at page 3; and Attachment D; and

WHEREAS Race conferred with members of Akin Gump’s Management Committee prior to the firm’s decision to terminate my employment. See Akin Gump Response to Interrogatories and Document Request, Response to Particulars (Attachment A), at page 3; and

WHEREAS Robertson’s action in securing the office suite that housed her office was motivated by her fear that I might possess or acquire a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon and unlawfully enter the said office suite with the intent to commit a crime of violence as defined by D.C. Code Section 22-3201(f); and

WHEREAS the fears that motivated Robertson’s action in securing the office suite were not vague or generalized; rather, Robertson stated with specificity to employees under her supervision her fear as to my purported intent to gain unlawful entry to the Department’s office suite in order to commit a crime of violence; and

WHEREAS Robertson’s action in securing the office suite was done with the cooperation and assistance of other employees possibly including one or more supervisory employees (such as Personnel Administrator Laurel Digweed or Services Manager Stella Edmondson); and

WHEREAS Robertson’s action in securing the office suite was not a hasty impulse but involved deliberation, planning, consultation and coordination with other employees, and involved at least a minimal financial expenditure; and

WHEREAS Robertson’s action in securing the office suite carried the unequivocal presumption that she had the specific fear I might commit the crime of unlawful entry (a misdemeanor under D.C. Code Section 22-3102) or burglary (a felony under D.C. Code Section 22-1801); and

WHEREAS Robertson’s action in securing the office suite and advising her employees that I might be armed and dangerous was knowingly malicious; knowingly unsupported by my past conduct as an employee (as memorialized in the firm’s personnel records), reputation in the firm, and Robertson’s prior personal dealings with me; and part of a long-standing pattern and practice of harassing and discriminatory conduct in violation of my rights under the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 (“the Act”); and

WHEREAS I advised the D.C. Department of Human Rights (“DHR”) of Robertson’s malicious and discriminatory action in (1) telling employees that I might be armed and dangerous and (2) advising employees that the lock to the employees’ office therefore had to be changed in order to protect against the possibility that I might return to the office to commit a crime of violence. See Complainant’s Application for Reconsideration of a No Probable Cause Finding (filed July 27, 1993), at Attachment A, paragraph 7; and

WHEREAS the DHR determined that I was not harassed and was not subjected to unlawful discrimination in violation of the Act; that my belief that I was subjected to harassment and discrimination was the product of a paranoid mental disturbance that rendered me potentially violent and an imminent threat to persons in my environment; and

WHEREAS the determination by the DHR that my belief that I was subjected to disparate treatment under the Act was solely the product of a severe paranoid mental disturbance carries the necessary presumption that my continued and unwavering belief that I was subjected to disparate treatment under the Act is per se evidence that I continue to suffer from a severe paranoid mental disturbance that renders me potentially violent and an imminent threat to persons in my environment; and

WHEREAS the determination by the DHR that I suffer from a severe paranoid mental disturbance that renders me potentially violent and an imminent threat to persons in my environment contributes to the appearance or presumption that the action of Robertson in securing the office suite was justifiable and that Robertson’s fear that I might be armed and dangerous was reasonable; and

WHEREAS sworn statements filed with the DHR in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, Docket No. 92-087-P(N), by Hoffman and Race that my conduct in the firm was at times violent and that the firm had determined in consultation with a psychiatrist that I was paranoid and potentially violent contributes to the appearance or presumption that the action of Robertson in securing the office suite was justifiable and that Robertson’s fear that I might be armed and dangerous was reasonable; and

WHEREAS Robertson’s position as a senior supervisory employee who had routine and frequent contact with one or more members of the firm’s Management Committee, including Hoffman and McLean, contributes to the appearance or presumption that the action of Robertson in securing the office suite was made with the constructive knowledge of the firm’s Management Committee; or with the actual prior approval or subsequent ratification of one or more members of the firm’s Management Committee; and

WHEREAS statements made by Robertson that I might be armed and dangerous, which I reported in writing to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), may have been a material factor in the decision by the FBI to forward said writing to the U.S. Secret Service for possible investigation; and

WHEREAS statements made by Robertson that I might be armed and dangerous, which statements were communicated to the U.S. Secret Service by the FBI, may have been a material factor in the decision by the U.S. Secret Service to conduct an investigation into my potential for harm to that agency’s protectees,

NOW, THEREFORE, I HEREBY STATE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, D.C. CODE SECTION 22-2514, PROVIDING FOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS:

I do not now nor have I ever owned, purchased, or otherwise acquired a pistol, firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon as defined by D.C. Code Section 22-3202(a) in the District of Columbia or in any jurisdiction;

I have never attempted to purchase or acquire any dangerous or deadly weapon nor have I ever used or handled such a weapon at any time in my life;

I have never committed, attempted, or threatened to commit a crime of violence as defined by D.C. Code Section 22-3201(f) in the District of Columbia or in any jurisdiction;

At no time during my employment at Akin Gump did I act in any manner that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I might be armed or that I might attempt to acquire a dangerous or deadly weapon; and

At no time during my employment at Akin Gump did I act in any manner that would lead a reasonable person to believe that I might commit a crime of violence or any violent act.

/s/
_____________________
Gary Freedman

4-24-95
_____________________
Date

I, Gary Freedman, hereby reaffirm the above statement this 26th day of July 2010 under penalties for making false statements under the applicable laws of the District of Columbia and the United States. I hereby reaffirm that the statements contained therein have been true and correct during the entire period April 24, 1995 to the present date.

The following is a lengthy email message that I sent to Jeffrey G. Huvelle, a former law partner of current U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. on July 22, 2005 at the law firm of Covington & Burling in Washington, DC. Did the communication put Mr. Holder on notice that the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld was engaged in illegal activity that warranted a criminal inquiry? Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (now deceased) is a former law partner at Covington & Burling.

On January 15, 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice sent two Deputy U.S. Marshals to my residence to direct me, under penalty of criminal prosecution, not to contact Mr. Huvelle again. Mr. Huvelle never directed me personally not to contact him. Both Attorney General Eric Holder and DOJ Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer are former law partners of Mr. Huvelle’s at Covington & Burling.

—–Original Message—–
From: GarFreed@netscape.net
To: Jeffrey G. Huvelle at Covington & Burling
Sent: Fri, Jul 22, 2005 2:47 pm

Subject: CHARLES RUFF — ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT — CIVIL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

The following letter discusses the federal civil rights implications of Charles Ruff’s (and his successor’s) use of legally-irrelevant evidence in Freedman v. DC Department of Human Rights, DC Sup. Ct. and DC Court of Appeals, 96-CV-961.

Please send my regards to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. He is someone I admire a great deal.

GARY FREEDMAN

_______________________________________________________

November 2, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Charles Ramsey
Chief of Police
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC

RE: Mental Disability — Discrimination — Police/FBI

RE: Mental Disability — Discrimination — Police/FBI

Dear Chief Ramsey:

I am writing to you, Chief Ramsey, to apprise the Office of Chief of Police of a serious police matter that arose in the second district on October 12, 2004. Underlying the police matter is an issue of discrimination involving the DC Office of Corporation Counsel.

I forwarded a letter to the Washington Field Office of the FBI concerning the following matter on October 23, 2004.

I have been unemployed and disabled under U.S. Social Security Administration eligibility rules since October 29, 1991. My Social Security no. is xxx xx xxxx.

I am a patient of the DC Department of Mental Health (Patient no. xxxxxx). I receive psychotropic medications from the DC Department of Mental Health.

I was employed as a paralegal at the Washington, DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld until October 29, 1991. Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner, terminated my employment upon determining in consultation with a psychiatrist (who did not examine me personally) that there were reasonable concerns about my mental health and stability that rendered me unsuitable for employment. Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). The fact that I had received “above average or outstanding” job performance ratings during my three-and-one-half-year tenure was not disputed; also undisputed was the fact that my personnel file contained no record of reprimands, oral or written.

SSA granted my claim for benefits (in August 1993) in part based on Mr. Race’s sworn interrogatory responses filed with the DC Dept. of Human Rights (in May 1992); SSA’s disability determination date, October 29, 1991, was the date of job termination.

There is substantial evidence that Mr. Race’s interrogatory responses were perjured; that Mr. Race did not in fact consult with the psychiatrist, Gertrude R. Ticho, MD [now deceased], a physician licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. See Brief of Appellant, 96-CV-961. Additionally, I possess tape recordings of two telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denies any contacts or acquaintance with Dennis M. Race. Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Metro DC Police is in possession of copies of those conversations (202 282 0070).

I was seriously defamed by Mr. Race, my supervisor, a coworker (who was subsequently terminated for gross misconduct), and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. In the past several months I have been sending out job inquiries to employers, which summarize allegations made against me by the above-named parties. On October 12, 2004 ten (10) Metro DC Police officers (including a second district supervisor) plus four (4) FBI agents showed up at my residence because of a letter I sent to an employer, who had contacted the police in alarm. The letter was purely factual; several prospective employers, including The Montgomery County Government, sent me a cordial reply to a nearly identical letter. So damaging was the defamation to which I was subjected that the police were convinced I must be insane to have written such a letter. The police had me transported to DC General Hospital in handcuffs for an emergency psychiatric examination. I was interviewed by a Dr. Martin at DC General (202 673 9319) (ECURA #224623) who determined that I did not require admission. I was released; no medication was administered, prescribed or recommended. Of course, the incident bolsters my Social Security disability claim. I have already received in excess of $100,000 in benefits.

The defamatory allegations about my character that arose at my last place of employment, which I have a legal duty to report to a prospective employer, may impose a constitutionally-impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment. The allegations, made at my last place of employment, were presumably a substantial factor in SSA’s disability determination. Despite the fact that the allegations were made at least 13 years ago, they remain material to my difficulties in my last employment situation.

Facts about my psychiatric treatment history since 1992 are peculiar, if not bizarre:

1. I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 1992 as an outpatient at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry (Napoleon Cuenco, MD). The illness did not respond to lithium, and later underwent spontaneous remission.

2. I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at GW in May 1994 (William Fabian, Ph.D.). The testing did not yield a psychiatric diagnosis or disclose any psychotic thought processes. The testing yielded a valid profile. I was not on any meds at the time. The WAIS yielded a verbal IQ of 135 (99th percentile) and an overall IQ of 125 (above average).

3. In February 1996 I was diagnosed at GW (Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD) with paranoid schizophrenia that later underwent spontaneous remission.

4. In March 1996 I took a psychological test called “The Wisconsin Scales of Psychosis Proneness” (Ramin Mojtabai, MD). Results were negative. I scored six non-perseverative errors — one of the lowest possible scores, indicating high concept-formation ability. I was not on any meds at the time.

DC DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH

5. In July 1996 I entered the DC Dept. of Mental Health System. In January 1998 my psychiatrist, Dr. Singh (a resident) determined in consultation with his supervisor (Stephen Quint, MD) that I suffered from no diagnosis or condition for which meds were indicated.

6. In February 1999 Albert H. Taub, MD diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, which later underwent spontaneous remission. I was later diagnosed with delusional disorder. That portion of my thinking termed delusional has not responded to three different antipsychotic meds: Zyprexa, Abilify, and Risperdal. I currently take Effexor for depression and Xanax for insomnia.

7. On March 16-17 2004 I had a minor bout of paranoid schizophrenia, so-called “24-hour” paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed by Betsy Jane Cooper, MD. My treatment plan prepared on March 17, 2004 by my case manager/therapist, Dr. Israella Bash, records that Dr. Cooper diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia on March 17, 2004; Dr. Cooper prescribed Zyprexa on March 17, 2004, which I took for about a month. There was no change in my delusional thinking. My current diagnosis is delusional disorder. Again, Dr. Martin at DC General recommended no anti-psychotic meds during my emergency psychiatric assessment on October 12, 2004; I was not agitated on October 12, 2004–my blood pressure was normal, 130/85.

I am totally socially isolated. I have no friends. I haven’t spoken to my only relative, an older sister, since February 1996.

I have created an imaginary friend who I write letters to periodically, Brian Patrick Brown, manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Library System. The enclosed disc contains some of my recent letters to Brian.

I like Brian a lot, and would welcome him as a real friend. How I wish I could be Brian’s real buddy!

My therapist, Dr. Bash (DC Dept. of Mental Health) is at 202 576 8939. My psychiatrist, Henry Barbot, MD, is at 202 576 8946.

Thank you. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC (202 514 7566) is familiar with this matter.

In closing, this will respectfully advise the Office of Chief of Police that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment. Also, in order to invoke my rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act I must fully apprise a prospective employer of facts concerning my disability, including allegations (however defamatory) placed in controversy by Dennis M. Race, Esq., his employees, and the DC Office of Corporation Counsel. State action that impairs my right to seek employment or my right to protections under federal law may be legally actionable.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

APPENDIX A:

LETTER FROM OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT [unsigned], DATED OCTOBER 14, 2004:

Dear Applicant:

Enclosed you will find the resume/application that you submitted to the Office of Human Resources. We are returning this resume/application because you must apply for a specific position.

In order to be considered for employment with Montgomery County Government, you must apply for an announced position. Information pertaining to current employment opportunities is available on our website at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov – click on careers.

We appreciate your interest in Montgomery County and wish you continued success in your employment endeavors.

Sincerely,

Office of Human Resources
Montgomery County Government

APPENDIX B:

LETTER FROM GARY FREEDMAN TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE I SENT TO A WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYER, WHICH TRIGGERED A LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE BY TEN METRO DC POLICE OFFICERS ASSISTED BY FOUR FBI AGENTS. THE LETTER IS PURELY FACTUAL; IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY ME. THE LETTER SUMMARIZES FALSE, MALICIOUS, AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS MADE ABOUT ME, AND IS EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE DEFAMATION BY ATTORNEY MANAGERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE LAW FIRM OF AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, AS WELL AS THE DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL (CHARLES L. REISCHEL, ESQ., DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION). NOTE THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFAMATION BY A STATE AGENCY CONSTITUTES A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION [WHERE THAT DEFAMATION INJURES A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165-66, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).]

[The following letter is stamped by the Montgomery County Government: RECEIVED – HUMAN RESOURCES – 04 OCT 13 A10:47 – MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT]

October 12, 2004
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

Office of Human Resources
101 Monroe Street
7th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850

RE: EMPLOYMENT — ARMED, MASS HOMICIDE — REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HARM

Dear Sir:

I am writing to you at the express direction of the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department (Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226, Second District, Washington, DC: 202 282 0070) that I actively seek employment consistent with my high intelligence as well as my professional and academic credentials.

I am specifically interested in the position of senior legislative attorney for the Montgomery County Council. I am an attorney, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hold an advanced degree (Master of Laws) in international trade law.

I am a disabled American, and I qualify for the legal protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe I have a legal duty to apprise you, as a prospective employer, of the following matters.

1. TERRORISTIC THREATS: On April 21, 2004 the Metro DC Police issued a protective order against me, on the petition of Brian Patrick Brown, Manager of the Cleveland Park Branch of the DC Public Library. Brian Brown alleged that I had made terrorist threats, in writing, against unspecified persons. The six-month order of protection prohibits my entering or loitering in the vicinity of said library, under penalty of arrest and prosecution. The investigating officer was the aforementioned Officer Williams. This will advise that at this time I continue to satisfy the prognostic criteria that were determined by the Metro DC Police in April 2004 to indicate that I am at significant risk of committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of committing a crime of violence. It is likely that I will satisfy said criteria for committing a crime of violence or arousing a reasonable apprehension of same in the future event I obtain employment with The Montgomery County Council. On April 21, 2004 Officer Williams stated to me: “You seem OK to me right now, but what I’m worried about is what’s going to happen a few days from now.” Obviously, my future conduct was a substantial concern to the Metro DC Police. [Note that if I had made an actual threat I would have been arrested or transported to DC General Hospital for a forensic psychiatric examination. It is clear that what the MPDC did was to simply rubber-stamp a specious request made by a supervisory DC employee.]

2. VIOLENCE-RISK DETERMINATION: My former employer, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a senior management partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that my thinking was consistent with a psychiatric “disorder” that might be associated with a risk of violent behavior. See Freedman v. DC Dept. of Human Rights, 96-CV-961 (DCCA, Sept. 1998). [The psychiatrist did not evaluate me personally. There is no documentary evidence that Mr. Race, in fact, consulted a psychiatrist. Under applicable law, the employer had a burden of production, not a burden of persuasion — a very low evidentiary threshold.] Mr. Race determined that my continued presence on the firm’s premises might pose a risk of tort liability for the firm, and terminated my employment effective October 29, 1991. I have been unemployed and disabled under Social Security Administration eligibility rules since the date of the termination. My thinking, upon which Mr. Race’s violence-risk determination was based, remains unchanged.

3. HOMICIDE-RISK DETERMINATION: Shortly after conferring with Mr. Race about his forensic psychiatric determination, my supervisor called a meeting of her employees to advise them that she had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might have been planning to kill her [an act of defamation]. The supervisor undertook [self-serving] protective measures [to give the appearance that she needed] to ensure her safety as well as that of her employees against a possible future homicidal assault. See Brief of Appellant. Mr. Race did not challenge appellant’s brief. The supervisor was a senior non-attorney manager who reported directly to a member of the firm’s management committee, R. Bruce MacLean, Esq. Mr. MacLean is the firm’s current managing partner.

4. ARMED, MASS HOMICIDAL ASSAULT: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, “after-acquired” evidence], that my coworkers had formed genuine and credible fears that I might carry out an armed, mass homicidal assault on the firm’s premises, and that said widespread fears of an armed, mass homicide were material to Mr. Race’s termination decision. See Brief of Appellee, District of Columbia (citing statement of coworker [who was later terminated for gross misconduct] in record on appeal: “We’re all afraid of you. We’re all afraid you’re going to buy a gun, bring it in and shoot everybody!”). At oral argument before the DC Court of Appeals, the Assistant Corporation Counsel declared to the Court, referencing the above record evidence, that I had “admitted” that my “coworkers were afraid of” me. Mr. Race did not challenge the District’s handling of 96-CV-961.

5. MULTIPLE ARMED HOMICIDE UNDER FEDERAL LAW: On the evening of August 6, 1998 two Special Agents of the US Capitol Police (Threat Investigation Unit) forcibly entered my home, after frisking me for weapons, and proceeded to interrogate me about an allegation made by a DC employee that, earlier in the day, at the height of an enraged argument, I had threatened to kill two federal officers at point-blank range, execution style in the Capitol rotunda. Later investigation by Agent Steven Horan disclosed that said allegation was mistakenly based on a letter I had written to my psychiatrist (Stephen Quint, MD) and copied to a DC agency that factually summarized Mr. Race’s violence-risk determination [an act of defamation]; my supervisor’s homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation]; as well as the DC Corporation Counsel’s determination that my coworkers had formed a reasonable apprehension that I might commit an armed, mass homicide [an act of defamation]. Though I was exonerated of making unlawful threats, Officer Horan photo ID’d me to all federal officers assigned to the U.S. Capitol Building as a protective measure.

6. POTENTIAL TERRORIST: On August 7, 1998 Agent Horan advised me that the federal government (unbeknownst to me) had previously placed my name on a national registry of potential terrorists because of a letter I had written in 1996 to a local psychiatric facility (The Meyer Clinic), inquiring into out-patient services. Said letter elaborated Mr. Race’s violence-risk determination [an act of defamation] as well as my supervisor’s homicide-risk determination [an act of defamation].

7. PRESIDENTIAL THREAT: On the afternoon of August 7, 1998 two Special Agents of the U.S. Secret Service placed me under house arrest because of concerns I might pose a risk of harm to President Clinton. The two Secret Service agents were part of a team of six federal special agents who had been assigned to interrogate me and secure my person, over a two-day period (August 6-7, 1998). Federal law enforcement concerns were aroused by a letter I had written and sent to a DC agency that discussed the federal civil rights implications of the DC Corporation Counsel’s handling of 96-CV-961. I had sent an identical letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-PA.) on Capitol Hill, who responded with a cordial and personalized reply. Senator Specter, a former prosecutor, saw absolutely nothing threatening about the letter I had written, much less did he see the need to assign six federal special agents to interrogate me and secure my person.

8. POSSIBLE DOCUMENT FORGERY: The District speculates that I might have filed an inauthentic letter with a DC agency (purportedly written by a psychiatrist) in order to invidiously deny competent forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by Mr. Race under oath that showed I had been reasonably determined to be potentially violent. Presumably, according to the District [contrary to well-established case law], I might have forged a psychiatrist’s signature and/or fabricated her letterhead. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC has not yet issued me a notice of an intent to prosecute me.

9. UNLAWFUL SEXUAL THOUGHTS: The DC Corporation Counsel determined, sua sponte [relying on legally-irrelevant, “after-acquired” evidence], that private, undisclosed sexual thoughts I experienced on April 13, 1990 concerning the activity of masturbation were material to Mr. Race’s termination decision as well as to Mr. Race’s violence-risk determination. Mr. Race did not challenge the District’s brief. I admit to having sexual thoughts in the workplace.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please send my regards to Doug Gansler, Esq. He’s a bit of an attention seeker, but he knows what he’s talking about.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Gary Freedman
PA ATTY ID 41032

December 23, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for D.C.
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Weapons Possession – Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm/Possible Intent to Commit Murder – D.C. Corporation Counsel Affirmation – Possible Concealment of State and/or Federal Weapons Law Violations – Unlawful False Statements

Dear Mr. Holder:

This letter will constitute the formal reaffirmation of the following statement previously forwarded to the Office of U.S. Attorney: “Statement of Gary Freedman to the Office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Regarding Intent to Commit Crime of Violence as Determined by the Law Firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld,” dated April 24, 1995.

This reaffirmation is offered in the wake of the express affirmation by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel that an Akin Gump coworker’s statement, made in about August 1989, that I might be armed and homicidal 1/ was not evidence of a hostile, offensive, or intimidating work environment, and that these specific fears (namely, that I might acquire firearms and possess the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or commit murder) were relevant to the employer’s decision to terminate my employment. See Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Petition for Review of no Probable Cause Determination by Department of Human Rights at 6, Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA 95-14 (final order issued June 10, 1996). The express affirmation by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel that an Akin Gump coworker had genuine fears that I might be armed and homicidal conflicts with the statement dated April 24, 1995 that I made to the D.C. Office of U.S. Attorney under penalty of criminal sanctions that I have never possessed, or had the intent to acquire, firearms and have never engaged in violent threats.

I understand that my violation of D.C. Code 22-2514 (providing for criminal sanctions for making false statements) may subject me to possible criminal investigation and prosecution. I welcome such an investigation.

Akin Gump is managed at its highest level by a three-member Executive Committee that includes as members Robert S. Strauss (a close friend and personal confidant of U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin) and Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. (a close friend and personal confidant of President Clinton). Any criminal investigation by the Office of U.S. Attorney that were to reveal that I had in fact made violent threats during my employment (consistent with the express affirmation by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel that a coworker’s concern about my potential for homicide
was genuine) would necessarily raise questions as to why Akin Gump managers failed to learn of such threats and/or disclose the threats to law enforcement officials.

I know that a decision by the Office of U.S. Attorney not to institute a criminal investigation is never influenced by political considerations.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Howard M. Shapiro, FBI General Counsel, ext. 4-6829

______________________________________
1/ The referenced statement, made by Stacey Schaar, is memorialized at page 38 (record on appeal at 276) of Complainant’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Interrogatories and Document Request, a notarized pleading that I filed on January 5, 1993 in D.C. Department of Human Rights investigation no. 92-087-P(CN), Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld. According to the pleading Stacey Schaar stated: “We’re all afraid of you. We’re all afraid you’re going to buy a gun, bring it in, and shoot everybody.”

September 22, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC  20001

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed of your information is a copy of the Order, filed September 20, 1995, by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that denies my Petition for Rehearing in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, No. 93-AA-1342.  I retain a right to file an appeal in Superior Court.  SeeMemorandum Opinion and Judgment filed January 10, 1995.

The determinations of representatives of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the George Washington University Medical Center, and the Government of the District of Columbia (Department of Human Rights) relating  in  my case to psychiatric diagnoses of severe mental disturbance 1/, potential for violence 2/, plans to procure firearms or other deadly weapons 3/, possible homicidal tendencies 4/, a paranoid (psychotic) mental disturbance featuring delusions relating to the law form of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld 5/, and propensity to lie to conceal the nature and severity of my illness 6/ remain unmodified.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
_______________________________________

1/ Jerry M. Wiener, M.D. (Past President, American Psychiatric Association and Psychiatry Department Chairman),  Dimitrios Georgopoulos, M.D. (Chief Psychiatry Resident), Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D.(former Chief Psychiatry Resident), Daniel Tsao, M.D. (former Attending Physician), Napoleon Cuenco, M.D. (assessing psychiatrist), and William Fabian, Ph.D.  (staff psychologist)

2/  Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. (managing partner), Dennis M. Race, Esq. and Margie A. Utley (former Director, D.C. Dept. Human Rights)

3/  Christine Robertson (acting under the apparent authority of R. Bruce McLean, Esq., Akin Gump management committee member), and Stacey Schaar

4/  Christine Robertson (acting under the apparent authority of R. Bruce McLean, Esq., Akin Gump management committee member), and Stacey Schaar

5/  William Fabian, Ph.D.

6/  William Fabian, Ph.D. (with the approval of Jerry M. Wiener, M.D.: See Letter of Dr. Wiener’s dated 10/4/94 refusing to comment on or modify the psychological test report prepared under Dr. Fabian’s supervision, which test report includes the determination that I might have lied on psychological testing to conceal a delusional psychosis)

January 27, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
Government of the District of
Columbia
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
D.C. Superior Court No. 0014 M.P.A.

Dear Mr. Ruff:

The enclosed correspondence is forwarded for the information of the Office of Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia with respect to the above-referenced matter.

The above-referenced matter is an appeal of a no probable cause determination by the D.C. Department of Human Rights. The no probable cause determination was based on an express finding of fact that my belief that I had been fired as a result of unlawful discrimination was the product of a severe paranoid mental disturbance that rendered me potentially violent and not suitable for employment.

Be advised that any substantive pleadings filed by the Office of Corporation Counsel in the above-referenced matter that support the said finding of fact may be material to a possible future insanity defense were I to commit a crime of violence (including homicide or other heinous crime) under the laws of the United States or the District of Columbia. Any such pleadings filed by the Office of Corporation Counsel may necessarily impair the prosecution of any crime with which I am charged that requires a specific mental state.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.
John C. Keeney, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Crim. Div.
William J. Earl, Esq., Office of D.C. Corp. Counsel

August 31, 1995
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for your general information with respect to the above-referenced matter is a collection of documents relating to my psychiatric treatment history at the George Washington University Medical Center.

I have great respect for the Office of U.S. Attorney and I don’t mean to sound flippant or disrespectful, but I think I should be candid and honest. I can only say that I hope you appreciate looking at rivers, mountains, and streams, because I think GW and Akin Gump are taking you for a long ride down the scenic route.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

September 13, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Hon. Eugene H. Hamilton
Chief Judge
Superior Court of the District of
Columbia
500 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Jury Duty Disqualification – Violence/Homicide Risk

Dear Judge Hamilton:

The enclosed documents are forwarded to the court as pertinent to my fitness to serve in the future on a jury impaneled by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

1. Letter dated June 20, 1996 to Howard Shapiro, Esq., General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

2. Response to Interrogatories filed by Dennis M. Race, Esq. in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, in District of Columbia Department of Human Rights Investigation no. 92-087-P(CN); and

3. Authorization for Disclosure directed to Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., under which Dr. Ticho may disclose to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia the content of a professional (psychiatric) opinion she provided to attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld relating to my mental stability and potential for violence. See Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, Superior Court no. MPA 95-14 (final order issued June 10, 1996) (xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx, J., 879-xxxx).

Rest assured that I will keep the Superior Court advised of any material facts pertinent to my fitness for jury service.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.

October 10, 1995
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Charles L. Reischel
Deputy Corporation Counsel
Government of the District of Columbia
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights

Dear Mr. Reischel:

The enclosed copy of the Petition for Review of Agency Decision filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 10, 1995 in the above-referenced matter is forwarded per D.C. Superior Court agency review Rule 1(a).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Dennis M. Race
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.
Jo Ann Harris, U.S. Dept. of Justice-Criminal Division

January 27, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

William J. Earl, Esq.
Office of Corporation Counsel
Appellate Division
Room 6S-077
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
D.C. Superior Court No. 0014 M.P.A.

Dear Mr. Earl:

I believe that in view of the unusual factual background of the above-referenced matter, as detailed in the enclosed letter dated September 26, 1994 to Charles L. Reischel, Esq. and letter dated June 8, 1995 to the Office of U.S. Attorney for D.C., it is appropriate that the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel consider not defending this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Eric. H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.
Charles F.C. Ruff, D.C. Corporation Counsel
John C. Keeney, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division

August 3, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Harold F. Baker, Esq.
Trustee, George Washington University
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Baker:

The enclosed memoranda, dated July 31 1995 and August 2, 1995, addressed to my current treating psychiatrist at the George Washington University Medical Center, Dr. Georgopoulos, are forwarded for your information in your capacity as trustee of the George Washington University.

I direct your specific attention to the memorandum dated August 2, 1995, paragraph 7, regarding the possible civil liability of the George Washington University Medical Center were I to injure an individual consistent with the determination of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld that I am potentially violent and possibly armed and homicidal. The Medical Center’s refusal to consult with Akin Gump’s managers to ascertain the precise facts concerning my alleged “volatile,” “violent,” “disruptive,” and “bizarre” conduct as an employee may be negligent.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: FBI
U.S. Secret Service
Office of U.S. Attorney [Eric H. Holder, Esq.]

July 18, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Philip C. Leadroot
Special Agent
U.S. Secret Service
Suite 1000
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Leadroot:

Enclosed for your information are 12 computer discs, copies of all computer discs in my possession. The discs contain personal files that I created during the period November 1991 until the present.

I understand that the U.S. Secret Service may share any information contained on the enclosed discs with any government agency or law enforcement authority.

I have not created, deleted, or omitted any file with the intent corruptly to establish or augment any right or entitlement under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction. I have not created, deleted, or omitted any file with the intent corruptly to establish a defense to the prosecution of any crime under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Office of U.S. Attorney for D.C. [Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq.–without enclosures]

January 2, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2733

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
Social Security Disability Claim xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for the information of the U.S. Attorney is a copy of the most recent communication to my psychiatrist: memo dated January 2, 1996 (attaching revised version of letter dated December 27, 1995).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

June 13, 1995
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for your information is a letter to the U.S. Secret Service (dated June 12, 1995) that forwards to that agency a slightly revised version of my letter to the Office of U.S. Attorney, originally dated June 8, 1995.

The revisions to the letter dated June 8, 1995, a copy of which is enclosed, highlight certain factual omissions in Akin Gump’s pleadings filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights, the consistent pattern of which omissions suggests an intent to conceal.

Revisions to the letter dated June 8, 1995 are highlighted, and are found on page 2 (at paragraph 6); page 6 (n. 1 and n. 2); and APPENDIX A.

I note, incidentally, that my medical records on file at the George Washington University Medical Center attribute my paranoia to an inability to appraise complex fact patterns. A psychological test report prepared in about May 1994 and approved by staff psychologist William D. Fabian, Ph.D. states that I become easily confused when faced with a complex fact pattern and become “lost in a maze of facts.” It is this same report that states that I lied on psychological testing in order to conceal my paranoia.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

May 22, 1995
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

The enclosed letters to Harold Baker, Esq. and Jerry M. Wiener, M.D., both dated May 22, 1995, are forwarded for your information.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Freedman

June 29, 1995
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

The enclosed letter to Mr. Harold F. Baker, dated June 29, 1995, is forwarded for your information.

I believe the Office of U.S. Attorney should have grave concerns about the actions of a government agency in rubber-stamping a mental health determination by a private employer, which mental health determination might, in some future criminal proceedings, impair or preclude the prosecution of a crime of violence.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 29, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Hon. John G. Penn
Chief Judge
U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia
3rd & Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC

RE: Jury Duty Disqualification

Dear Judge Penn:

This letter will advise the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of material facts that may disqualify me from any future service on a petit or grand jury impaneled by this Court.

1. I continue to believe that I was subjected to job harassment and discrimination during my employment at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (Akin Gump). According to the Government of the District of Columbia (Dept. of Human Rights), my belief that I was subjected to harassment and job discrimination while employed at Akin Gump was the product of a severe paranoid mental disturbance that renders me potentially violent and not suitable for employment, and, presumably, unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.

2. Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. and Dennis N. Race, Esq., two attorney managers of Akin Gump have, to the best of my knowledge, not disavowed a determination by my former direct supervisor, Christine Robertson, that I might be armed and homicidal. According to the Government of the District of Columbia the act of Christine Robertson in advising her employees that I might be armed and extremely dangerous (homicidal) was not discriminatory in nature. 1/

The above factual determinations made by the Government of the District of Columbia are currently on appeal before the D.C. Superior Court in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, No. 95 M.P.A. 0014.

Unless or until the above factual determinations are expunged, I may be permanently barred from jury duty by reason of severe mental impairment.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
____________________________
1/ But cf. McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, No. 93-0477 (D.C.D.C., filed Nov. 29, 1993) (memorandum opinion and order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment). The Hon. Joyce Hens Green therein found that Christine Robertson had exhibited racial animus toward minority employees under her supervision. According to the Government of the District of Columbia my belief that I was subjected to harassment and discrimination by Christine Robertson was the product of a paranoid mental disturbance.

cc: Charles F.C. Ruff, D.C. Corporation Counsel
John C. Keeney, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Crim. Div.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for D.C.

January 2, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2733

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
Social Security Disability Claim xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for the information of the Office of U.S. Attorney is a copy of the most recent communication to my psychiatrist: memo dated January 2, 1996 (attaching revised version of letter dated December 27, 1995).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 2, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2733

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights
Social Security Disability Claim xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for the information of the Office of U.S. Attorney is a copy of the most recent communication to my psychiatrist: memo dated January 2, 1996 (attaching revised version of letter dated December 27, 1995).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

July 18, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2733

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

The enclosed letter to the U.S. Secret Service, dated June 18, 1995, is forwarded for your information.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

May 17, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: FREEDMAN v. AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed is additional documentation regarding the above-referenced matter, which I forwarded to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on May 16, 1994.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

August 4, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

The enclosed is offered for your information with respect to the above-referenced matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 26, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Petition for Rehearing, filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals on January 24, 1995, in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 24, 1994
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

James P. Turner
Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC

RE: D.C. Dept. of Human Rights Docket No. 92-087-P(N)
Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Turner:

This letter will respectfully advise with respect to the above-referenced matter that I have forwarded a copy of a recording of a telephone conversation I had with Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. some time during the week of October 25, 1993 to the following persons:

Charles L. Reischel
Deputy Corporation Counsel
6th Floor
441 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC

Enclosed herewith is a copy of a notarized statement forwarded to the above-named persons. A transcript of the subject telephone conversation was previously submitted to your office.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

January 5, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. James P. Turner
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
10th & Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Turner:

This letter is intended to communicate my serious concerns regarding the action of my former employer, a private entity, in using the legal processes of a state agency to defame me and to inflict severe emotional distress in violation of my civil rights under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

The violation of my civil rights under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 has occurred in the context of the following facts and circumstances:

1. During the period June 13, 1988 through October 29, 1991 I was employed in the capacity of legal assistant (paralegal) at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (“Akin Gump”), located at 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

On October 24, 1991 I complained to two attorney managers of Akin Gump, Mr. Malcolm Lassman and Mr. Dennis M. Race, that I was a victim of harassment by co-workers, supervisory personnel (including my immediate supervisor. Mrs. Christine Robertson), and attorneys of the firm;. I advised Messrs. Lassman and Race that the harassment focused on my perceived sexual preference (homosexual) and that the harassment appeared to have anti-Semitic overtones.

On October 29 1991 I was terminated by Akin Gump. Mr. Race advised me that he had investigated my allegations of harassment, that he was unable to substantiate my allegations of harassment 1/, and that there appeared to be a lack of fit between me and other firm personnel. Mr. Race also told me
____________________________
1/ On November 29, 1993 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found, in an unlawful termination matter unrelated to my case, that my supervisor, Mrs. Christine Robertson, exhibited racial animus toward black employees under her supervision. McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, No. 93-0477 (D.C. D.C., filed Nov. 29, 1993) (memorandum opinion and order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment) (See Exhibit A.) In July 1991, there months before

– 1 –

that my work was of poor quality. (In fact, all performance evaluations issued during my employment rated my work above-average or outstanding.)

Mr. Race stated that he had conferred with two outside consultants who advised Mr. Race that in a situation such as mine, termination was appropriate. Mr. Race did not identify the names of the consultants or their field of expertise. I had assumed at the time of the termination that the two consultants to which Mr. Race referred were experts in employee relations. Mr.Race indicated in no way whatsoever that he had determined that I suffered from emotional problems that rendered me not suitable for employment.

2. On February 4, 1992 I filed a Complaint [Docket No. 92-087-P(N)] with the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights and Minority Business Development (DOHR), alleging that Akin Gump’s decision to terminate my employment was unlawfully based on the perception that I was homosexual, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended.

3. On December 22, 1992 I received form DOHR via the U.S. Postal Service (certified mail) a copy of Akin Gump’s Response to Interrogatories and Document Request, filed with DOHR in Complaint Docket No. 92-087-P(N), dated May 22, 1992 (See Exhibit B). (I do not know by what means Akin Gump transmitted the pleadings to DOHR, whether by hand delivery or via the U.S. Postal Service.)
__________________
1/ (cont’d)
my termination, Mrs. Robertson called a meeting of the black employees under her supervision, including Mrs. Patricia McNeil, and asked them if they thought she was prejudiced against blacks. She explained that her black male receptionist, Mr. Richard Taylor, had accused her of being prejudiced against blacks and she wanted to know whether they shared that view. All three employees responded in the affirmative and provided her the reasons they felt that way, giving her examples of the way she treated blacks differently than whites. Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages at 2 (paragraph 12), McNeil, supra (See Exhibit D). Thus, irrespective of the merits of my allegations of harassment, a diligent investigation by Dennis Race in late October 1991 of my complaint of sexual and religious harassment would have disclosed that it was well known to employees within the department supervised by Mrs. Robertson that that supervisor had a disposition to engage in racially discriminatory, and at times racially offensive, behavior. Yet, Mr. Race’s (apparently de minimis) investigation failed to uncover even common knowledge of racially discriminatory conduct by my supervisor–evidence that was material to my complaint of sexual and religious harassment.

– 2 –

It was by way of Akin Gump’s Response that I learned for the first time, on December 22, 1992, that Akin Gump claimed to have based its termination decision in part on consultations with two mental health professionals, including an unidentified psychiatrist who allegedly advised Akin Gump that I suffered from a severe psychological disorder and was potentially violent.

Akin Gump’s Response also included a memorandum dated October 25, 1991 from my supervisor, Christine Robertson (a person later found by a federal court to exhibit racial animus), to Dennis Race that details purported difficulties that Mrs. Robertson had in her supervision of me and purported difficulties I had with co-workers. The memorandum is replete with factual distortions and defamatory accusations. Certain of Mrs. Robertson’s statements contained in the memorandum dated October 25, 1991 are contradicted by Akin Gump’s business records thus, certain of Mrs. Robertson’s statements were known to be false by Akin Gump’s managers at the time of the termination and at the time Akin Gump included the memorandum in the Response filed with the DOHR (See Exhibit C).

4. At the time of my termination on October 29, 1991 I was a beneficiary of Akin Gump’s Long-Term Disability Income Plan (“Plan”), underwritten by UNUM Life (See Exhibit D). At the termination meeting Mr. Dennis Race did not advise me of my rights under the Plan or provide sufficient facts concerning the emotional and psychological reasons for the termination to alert me to file a [timely] claim. The Plan requires that a claim be filed within 30 days of the onset of disability. It was not until December 22, 1992, upon my receipt of Akin Gump’s Response, that I learned that Akin Gump had purportedly determined that I was unsuitable for employment by reason of psychological disturbance. Even if I had retained insurance coverage by converting to an individual plan under COBRA immediately following the termination on October 29, 1991, the facts provided at the termination meeting were insufficient to alert me to file a timely claim on the basis of psychological disturbance.

Akin Gump’s failure to provide any facts that might alert me to file a timely disability claim allowed Akin Gump to avoid its obligation under an employee benefit plan and had the necessary effect of denying me employee benefit rights. [Cf. Zuniga v. Kleberg County Hosp., Kingsville, Tex., 692 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1982).]

(Akin Gump may have a pattern or practice of a discriminatory denial of employee benefits. In McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld the aggrieved employee, Mrs. Patricia McNeil, alleged that Akin Gump denied her maternity benefits. Also, Akin Gump’s termination of Mrs. McNeil after 4½ years employment precluded the vesting of her pension under ERISA, an event that would have occurred, but for the termination, upon the fifth anniversary of employment.)

– 4 –

5. On June 30, 1993 DOHR issued an opinion letter, which I received on July 1, 1993, stating its determination that there was no probable cause to believe that the action of Akin Gump in terminating my employment was discriminatory in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended (See Exhibit E). DOHR’s opinion letter identified Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., as the psychiatrist whom Akin Gump had supposedly consulted and who allegedly advised Akin Gump that I was severely disturbed and potentially violent.

6. On July 2, 1993 I placed a telephone call to Dr. Gertrude Ticho to inquire about her alleged consultation with an Akin Gump manager in the period immediately prior to my termination in October 1991. Dr. Ticho denied having had any such consultation with Akin Gump. Dr. Ticho stated emphatically that she would never make any representations regarding the mental status of an individual she had not seen in personal consultation. I have never had a psychiatric consultation with Dr. Gertrude Ticho.

In a letter to me dated July 4, 1993 Dr. Ticho states that she did not consult with Dennis Race of Akin Gump and that she has never seen me for a psychiatric consultation. I appended a copy of Dr. Ticho’s letter as an attachment to my Application for Reconsideration of DOHR’s No Probable Cause Finding, which I filed with DOHR on July 27, 1993 (See Exhibit D).

(The other mental health resource with which Akin Gump claimed to have consulted, Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources also denies having conferred with any Akin Gump managers at any time concerning me (See Exhibit D).)

6. In its Determination on Reconsideration, dated September 24, 1993, DOHR reaffirmed its earlier No Probable Cause finding issued on June 30, 1992 (See Exhibit F). DOHR found that Akin Gump’s termination decision was lawfully based on the employer’s determination that I suffered from severe emotional difficulties that rendered me not suitable for employment and potentially violent. DOHR also found that Akin Gump’s allegation that it had conferred with two mental health professionals was competent and persuasive evidence that the consultations had in fact occurred, despite the documentation I submitted to DOHR denying that any such consultations had taken place.

On October 22, 1993 I filed an Appeal of DOHR’s No Probable Cause finding with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Docket No. 93-AA-1342 (See Exhibit G). The appeal is currently pending.

A few days after October 22, 1993 I spoke again by telephone with Dr. Gertrude Ticho. Dr. Ticho stated that she had had “not the slightest contact” with any Akin Gump managers and affirmed having written the letter to me dated July 4, 1993,

– 5 –

the authenticity of which had been questioned by DOHR (See Exhibit H).

7. Beginning on October 29, 1991, as a direct result of the malicious conduct of Akin Gump management, I have suffered from psychological symptoms, severe at times. These symptoms have included intense anxiety, irritability, feelings of dread and a constant reliving of the painful experiences I suffered during my employment at Akin Gump. I did not suffer from these specific symptoms prior to the termination on October 29, 199l; the symptoms arose at the time of the termination and, indeed, are a direct consequence of the termination.

During the period immediately prior to October 29, 1991–from May 29, 1991 until October 8, 1991–I consulted weekly with a psychologist, Dr William Dr. Brown, for non-debilitating anxiety (See Exhibit I). As a psychologist, Dr. Brown is precluded from treating clients with severe emotional disorders. Principle 2 (Competence) of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists (Amended June 2, 1989), promulgated by the American Psychological Association (APA), requires that “[p]sychologists recognize the boundaries of their competence and the limitations of their techniques.” A psychologist’s continued treatment of a severely disturbed client would constitute a violation of the aforementioned ethical principle. The APA, which conducted a review of Dr. Brown’s handling of my case, has determined that Dr. Brown’s therapy did not exceed his competence (See Exhibit J).

The finding of the APA that Dr. Brown’s handling of my case did not violate that organization’s ethical principle regarding a psychologist’s competence leads to one inescapable conclusion: that during the period immediately prior to my termination on October 29, 1991–from May 29, 1991 until October 8, 1991–I did not suffer from psychological symptoms of sufficient severity so as to preclude competent non-medical handling by a psychologist. Further, the APA’s disposition of my Complaint against Dr. Brown is consistent with the logical inference that any severe and debilitating symptoms from which I currently suffer are a direct consequence of the malicious actions of Akin Gump management in late October 1991 in terminating my employment and the malicious actions perpetrated by Akin Gump management in connection with the unlawful termination investigation conducted by the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights and Minority Business Development.

On October 27, 1992, about one year after my job termination on October 29, 1991, I commenced weekly psychotherapy with Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D., a psychiatrist at the George Washington University Medical Center. During the session on the morning of December 22, 1992 Dr. Pitts advised me that she discerned improvement in my condition (See Exhibit K). Coincidentally,

– 6 –

on December 22, 1992 the U.S. Postal Service delivered to me a copy of Akin Gump’s Response to Interrogatories and Document request filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights in connection with that agency’s unlawful termination investigation. As discussed above, Akin Gump’s filing was replete with malicious factual distortions and defamatory accusations. In addition, the pleadings included fabricated–though at the time credible and disturbing–evidence that I had been secretly certified insane and potentially violent by an unidentified psychiatrist! By late January 1993–only weeks after I had read the extremely disturbing falsehoods contained in pleadings filed by Akin Gump–Dr. Pitts determined that it was therapeutically advisable that I undertake twice-weekly consultations and suggested for the first time, on January 19, 1993, that I take medication. On no occasion during the initial weeks of my therapy with Dr. Pitts–from October 27, 1992 through January 12, 1993–did she state that medication was indicated. Quite probably, the marked progress I had made after about eleven weeks of therapy, which Dr. Pitts noted on December 22, 1992, was nullified by the intense emotional distress I experienced following my receipt of Akin Gump’s defamatory pleadings late in the day on December 22, 1992.

There can be no doubt that the malicious conduct of Akin Gump management, at times outrageous, has had a direct and severe effect on my mental state, as it would on any reasonable person.

Conclusion

Based on the record presented herein it appears that attorney managers of my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, have conspired to use, and have in fact used, the legal processes of a state agency, the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights and Minority Business Development, to violate my civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by:

(a.) filing fabricated evidence with the DOHR that a psychiatrist had determined that I suffered from a severe psychological disturbance and was potentially violent;

(b.) filing with the DOHR the memorandum dated October 25, 1991 prepared by my former supervisor that contained false, malicious, and defamatory statements in denigration of my mental health and fitness as an employee, and which included statements contradicted by Akin Gump’s business records and therefore known to be false by Akin Gump’s attorney managers; and

(c.) causing the DOHR to have delivered to my residence via the U.S. Postal Service 1/ on December 22, 1992 Akin Gump’s
____________
2/ Akin Gump’s possible use of the U.S. Postal Service to deliver to the DOHR, and/or its causing the DOHR to have

– 7 –

Response to Interrogatories and Document Request, which contained fabricated and defamatory statements that I had been certified insane and potentially violent by an unidentified psychiatrist and which included the aforementioned memorandum dated October 25, 1991 prepared by my supervisor (an individual later found by a federal court to exhibit racial animus) thereby

(d.) causing me to suffer severe emotional distress that has resulted in a need for intensive psychiatric treatment, with a notable exacerbation of symptoms beginning in late January 1993.

I have submitted a collection of documents pertinent to this matter to the U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of Disability and International Operations, 1500 Woodlawn Drive, Baltimore MD 21241: Social Security Disability Claim No. xxx-xx-xxxx.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Office of U.S. Attorney [Eric H. Holder, Jr.]
Federal Bureau of Investigation/Washington Field Office
U.S. Social Security Administration
Charles L. Reischel D.C. Corporation Counsel
________________
2/ (cont’d)
the U.S. Postal Service deliver to me, perjured and defamatory pleadings may subject Akin Gump’s attorney managers to the jurisdiction of federal criminal law by reason of said managers’ use of the U.S. Postal Service to further a conspiracy to (1) obstruct an investigation of a state agency, (2) abuse the process of a state agency, (3) promote Akin Gump’s discriminatory employment practices, (4) defame, and (5) inflict emotional distress.

October 17, 1994
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Judiciary Center Building
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Dear Mr. Holder:

Enclosed with respect to the above-referenced matter is a tape recording containing two telephone conversations relating to the possible filing by attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (“Akin Gump”) of wilfully false sworn statements, a felony under D.C. Code Section 22-2513 (False swearing) and D.C. Code Section 22-2514 (False statements).

1. Telephone conversation on July 2, 1993 between me and Ilana Baptiste, an employee of the Washington office of Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources, Akin Gump’s former Employee Assistance Program provider. Ilana Baptiste states, upon reviewing my case file, that she is unable to substantiate any contacts between Sheppard Pratt and any Akin Gump managers, as alleged by Akin Gump in its Response to Interrogatories and Document Request (“Response”), dated May 22, 1992, filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights. Ilana Baptiste also states that she is aware of my previous discussions concerning this matter with Judy Peres, a Sheppard Pratt counselor, in January 1993. Ilana Baptiste reports her recollection that Judy Peres made a private statement in January 1993, at the time I relayed Akin Gump’s allegation concerning Sheppard Pratt: “Judy said [to me in private], ‘nothing like that was ever done.'”

With respect to the evidentiary weight of Ilana Baptiste’s statements, keep in mind that the statements of Ilana Baptiste are the spontaneous declarations of a low-level employee made in response to my unanticipated inquiry, and not the statements of a Sheppard Pratt supervisor following a deliberate assessment of possible legal exposure. I direct your specific attention to Ilana Baptiste’s statement regarding Akin Gump’s allegation of a contact with Sheppard Pratt concerning my mental status: “That just sounds so fabricated.”

(The telephone call was inadvertently terminated; no portion of the telephone conversation has been intentionally omitted).

2. Telephone conversation between me and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. on July 2, 1993. Dr. Ticho denies having had any contacts with Akin Gump managers of the nature alleged by Akin Gump in the Response. Dr. Ticho expressly states that she does not make any representations regarding the mental state of an individual she has not seen in private consultation. (A transcript of the telephone conversation is enclosed).

I have previously forwarded to your office a tape recording of a telephone conversation I had with Dr. Ticho in late October 1993 in which Dr Ticho denies having had any contacts with any Akin Gump managers. This completes the transmittal to your office of all evidence in my possession relating to the possible violation by Akin Gump managers of D.C. Code Section 22-2513 (False swearing) and/or D.C. Code Section 22-2514 (False statements) 1/.

Also enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter dated September 26, 1994 to the Hon. Annice M. Wagner, Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, regarding this matter. I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to have any further ex parte communications with the Court. The Court advised me at oral argument, on October 13, 1994, that it will not consider any nonrecord evidence relating to this issue. Regardless of the Court’s final disposition of Freedman v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, there is, nonetheless, a body of documentary evidence not part of the record on appeal strongly indicating that Akin Gump’s attorney managers filed false sworn statements with the D.C. Department of Human Rights, a felony under D.C. Code Sections 22-2513 and 22-2514. Further, Akin Gump’s failure to disavow possible false sworn statements that it filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights, and upon which the D.C. Court of Appeals must necessarily rely in its disposition of my Petition for Review, may constitute a fraud by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Charles L. Reischel [Deputy D.C. Corporation Counsel, deceased]
__________________

1/ Akin Gump’s Response includes a sworn Certification, executed by Laurence J. Hoffman, thereby satisfying the requirement of D.C. Code Section 22-2514(a) that the subscriber acknowledge liability to punishment for making false statements.

email Message to Prof. Ari Hoffman at Harvard

Professor Hoffman is a professor of Jewish literature at Harvard. He’s written and taught on Philip Roth.

Professor Hoffman:

May I interest you to take a look at an unusual book of Jewish interest I wrote — a kind novel in verse — about an Iranian-Jewish family living in Manhattan? Professor Stephen Greenblatt had some kind words about the book.

The text is at the following link:

https://dailstrug.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/the-emerald-archive-4-6.pdf

Gary Freedman
Washington, DC

—–Original Message—–
From: Everett, Aubrey
To: garfreed
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 2:23 pm
Subject: RE: book

Dear Gary Freedman,

My name is Aubrey Everett and I am writing on behalf of Professor Greenblatt. He would like to thank you for writing and sending along this extremely interesting piece of work. He wishes he could take more time to go through the pages, but with a full fall semester course load on the horizon, time is not in his favor. He wishes you the best of luck with your book.

Sincerely,
Aubrey

Looks like a cool guy!!

https://scholar.harvard.edu/arihoffman/classes