November 14, 2016
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008

The Honorable Channing D. Phillips
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

RE: Additional Evidence of Perjured Affidavit

Dear Mr. Phillips:

On July 14, 2016, xxxxx, obtained a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against me alleging that I had been stalking him. xxxxx

Circumstantial evidence within the four corners of xxxxx’s supporting affidavit suggests that the allegations in said affidavit were not made in good faith, that said affidavit was in fact perjured.

The affidavit alleges that it was on June 16, 2016 that xxxxx first learned of my Twitter page that contained numerous references to him and that xxxxx became immediately concerned for his personal safety and that of his family.

Typically, a person who forms fears for his personal safety does not wait an entire month – here, from June 16 to July 14 – to take protective measures. One would think that if xxxxx had good faith fears for his safety he would have taken out a protective order within days of his learning of a threat to his personal safety.
I would argue that in fact xxxxx did not form a good faith fear for his personal safety and that the allegations in the affidavit are false or perjured.

When you consider the above suspicious timeline combined with the fact that the affidavit itself contains nothing but frivolous allegations of threat – xxxxx does not allege that I actually threatened him or initiated inappropriate contact with him – is persuasive circumstantial evidence that the affidavit is false or perjured.

I continue to suspect that there is a backstory to xxxxx’s motivation in taking out a TPO against me. What were the real reasons for his taking out a TPO?

I transmit circumstantial evidence tending to show that the alleged reason for the TPO – namely, that xxxxx feared for his personal safety – may have been pretext for a corporate motivation for the TPO relating to concerns about my allegations of health care fraud.

On July 2, 2016, two weeks before xxxxx obtained the TPO, I had sent an email and attachment to xxxxx counsel for xxxxx’s employer, xxxxx. I copied the email and attachment to xxxxx’s Executive Director, xxxxx.

In the email I alleged that I was engaged in health care fraud and warned that in the event I obtained xxxxx services from xxxxx, billing for said services to Medicare and D.C. Medicaid might constitute healthcare fraud or abuse. xxxxx did not respond to said email.

Two weeks later, xxxxx (xxxxx) obtained a TPO against me supported by an apparently frivolous affidavit alleging that I had been stalking xxxxx, effectively ending xxxxx.

One wonders whether the true motivation for the TPO and xxxxx’s supporting affidavit was a corporate decision to conveniently terminate medical services for a troublesome patient who was making allegations of healthcare fraud. If that was the true motivation for the TPO, then xxxxx’s supporting affidavit was perjured.

Perhaps a reasonable prosecutor would find that the enclosed email and attachments have legal significance relating to the possible commission of perjury or conspiracy to commit perjury.


Gary Freedman

cc: Paul Abbate FBI WFO