February 6, 2017
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 136
Washington, DC 20008

Mr. Paul Abbate
Assistant Director in Charge
FBI Washington Field Office
601 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20535

RE: Social Security Fraud

Dear Mr. Abbate:

I have previously forwarded to your office documents that raise concerns about the legitimacy of my Social Security (SSA) Disability Claim, a mental health claim.  There is evidence that my claim is fraudulent in violation of the laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 408.

SSA awarded my claim for benefits in August 1993 based in large part on a disability determination made by my former employer, the D.C. law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (Dennis M. Race, Esq.). SSA determined that I became disabled and not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991, the date of job termination, based on sworn statements made by the employer stating that it had determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that I suffered from paranoid mental illness that might be associated with a risk of violence, thereby rendering me a “direct threat” in the workplace.

By the year 2018 I will have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars on an SSA disability claim based in large part on a sworn statement prepared by Akin Gump that alleges that I became disabled and unsuitable for employment in late October 1991 based on mental health reasons.

It is ironic, therefore, — to say the least — that the employer did not advise me at the time of job termination that I was being terminated for mental health reasons, and, in fact, advised me that the true reason for the termination was poor job performance.  The employer admits in its sworn statement (Response to Particulars 2):

2. On October 29, 1991, one of Respondent’s partners, Dennis Race, the Litigation Support Administrator, Christine Robertson and the Personnel Administrator, Laurel Digweed, met with Claimant and informed him of his termination and the reasons behind the decision. Claimant was informed that the law firm did not have a position (similar to his job tasks for client, Eastern Airlines) which allowed Claimant to work alone and isolated from other employees. He was also told that it was clear that he could not function in a group setting (he could not work with or in close proximity to other legal assistants or litigation support personnel). Claimant had openly admitted that he had difficulties interacting with co-workers and requested virtual isolation. He was informed that although Respondent tried to accommodate him, there was no longer work (or space) available to suit him. He was also informed that his behavior with co-workers was a problem. Claimant was specifically told the complaints which he raised about employee harassment were deemed baseless as proof of sexual or religious harassment. Claimant himself admitted that none of his claims of harassment had a direct impact on him or his employment with Respondent. In addition, he was told that during the course of the investigation of his harassment claims, Messrs. Lassman and Race were apprised of several employees’ complaints and concerns about the Claimant’s behavior and overall conduct which was detrimental to the firm.

Additionally, the employer makes the odd allegation in its sworn statement (Response to Particulars 3(A)):

3. A. Respondent does not dispute that Claimant’s written performance evaluations were very good. Claimant was a law school graduate performing paralegal or administrative duties. When terminated, he was told that his actual work product was not a problem.

In fact, at the termination meeting on October 29, 1991, Dennis Race advised me that my work was of poor quality, which he cited as justification for the termination.  The following day I telephone Mr. Race at his office at which time he reiterated the claim that my job performance was subpar.  See record on appeal at 453-454, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998).  Significantly, because the firm falsely denied in its sworn statement that I was being terminated for poor job performance, the Social Security Administration, which relied on said sworn statement in granting my claim for benefits, was never advised that the true reason for the termination was poor job performance.  In effect, SSA granted disability benefits on the basis of the employer’s perjured and misleading statement.

October 30, 1991 — Around 9:00 AM I telephoned Dennis Race at the office and asked him if the firm would object to a claim for unemployment insurance. Mr. Race said that the firm would not object, as long as I didn’t put down anything that embarrassed the firm. Noting that the previous day, Mr. Race had said that one of the reasons for my termination was that I ignored people’s corrections, I directed Mr. Race’s attention to my job evaluation dated November 1989 that expressly stated that I “catered to individual needs.” Mr. Race asked me if J.D. Neary had written that; I said, no, Constance Brown. Mr. Race politely explained that the problems with my work arose after that job evaluation had been written, which apparently in Mr. Race’s mind, made that job evaluation irrelevant. Record on appeal at 453-454.

Mr. Race made the firm’s approval of government benefits contingent on my not publishing any statements that embarrassed the firm (whatever that meant).  1/

Akin Gump’s failure to advise me of the mental health reasons for the job termination on October 29, 1991 prevented me from filing a timely claim, under the employer’s disability insurance contract (UNUM Life), for private disability insurance.  In addition, the employer’s failure to advise me of the mental health reasons for the termination — and its act of advising me at the termination meeting that I was being terminated for poor job performance (later denied in a sworn statement), goes to the truth of said sworn statement generally and the pretextual nature of the termination.


Gary Freedman


1/ See Petition of Gary Freedman “To The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Please Institute a Criminal Investigation” at paragraph 10 (published on change.org):

I believe that the USMS interview conducted on January 15, 2010 was the product of a criminal conspiracy between the USMS and other(s) to intimidate me in the free exercise of my constitutionally-protected right to publish facts concerning the likely fraudulent nature of my SSA disability claim and the likely criminal conduct of attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. 18 U.S.C. Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights).

I have previously forwarded documentation to the FBI evidencing Akin Gump’s obsessive interest in my blog “My Daily Struggles” in the period early 2010.