Can The Feds Protect Us From Terrorists? Technically, I Am A Terrorist!

Did you ever wonder how the federal government can protect us from terrorists when they can't even get their communications straight concerning a severely-disturbed fake mental patient?

On the evening of Thursday 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 Dennis M. Race's (202 887-4028) violence-risk determination; my supervisor's homicide-risk determination; 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. 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. Dennis M. Race was a partner at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in Washington, DC, where I used to work. My supervisor at Akin Gump had told her employees on the day I was fired, October 29, 1991, that she was afraid I might return to the firm's premises and kill her ("or something"). Or something!

On Friday August 7, 1998 I met with Agent Horan at the office of the U.S. Capitol Police on Capitol Hill. Earlier in the morning I met for the first time with my new psychiatrist, Albert H. Taub, MD. 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 as well as my supervisor's homicide-risk determination. Dennis Race had determined, in consultation with a psychiatrist, that I was paranoid and potentially violent.

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.

************************************************************

Here's the letter I received from Senator Arlen Specter. He obviously had no problem with the letter I sent to him in late July 1998:

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3802

September 29, 1998

Mr. Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Dear Mr. Freedman:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Charles Ruff.

I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention. As a United States Senator, it is essential that I be kept fully informed on the issues of concern to my constituents. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts on this matter in mind if the Senate considers this or related issues during the 105th Congress.

Again, thank you for writing. Please continue to keep me apprised of your views on this and other matters of concern.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter
United States Senator

AS/cxg

****************************************************************

Here's the letter I sent to Senator Arlen Specter that he then responded to (above).

July 29, 1998
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Hon. Arlen Specter
U.S. Senate
530 Senate Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510-3802

Dear Senator Specter:

I enclose for the general information of your office a recent document submission I made to the U.S. Secret Service (Phillip C. Leadroot, S.A.) under cover letter dated July 28, 1998.

The documents discuss the professional conduct of chief White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. in his capacity as Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, in the year 1996.

The documents discuss the legal and federal law enforcement consequences of the substantial reliance by Mr. Ruff's office on (1) legally-irrelevant "after-acquired" evidence and (2) evidence of prior professional conduct that was unlawful as of the commencement of the proceedings in the defense by Mr. Ruff's office of a civil rights action (employment discrimination lawsuit) involving the law partners of President Clinton's close friend, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.

Mr. Ruff assumed the position of chief White House Counsel in 1996 directly from his position as Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (cover letter only)

*****************************************************************

Here's the letter I transmitted to Senator Arlen Specter and to the U.S. Secret Service -- and the District of Columbia Office of City Administrator. Senator Specter clearly didn't have a problem with the letter; he sent me a cordial reply. Secret Service Special Agent Philip C. Leadroot didn't have a problem with the letter, either. But the DC Office of City Administrator did have a problem -- a big problem! Apparently, a DC employee telephoned the Secret Service to advise that a homicidal maniac had just threatened to shoot the president! It took several days for the U.S. Secret Service to figure out the problem. -- And these are the people protecting the president? These are the people protecting the homeland from terrorists?

July 28, 1998
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Phillip C. Leadroot, S.A.
U.S. Secret Service
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Leadroot:

I request that the U.S. Secret Service refer this communication to the U.S. Department of Justice. I believe that the enclosed letters reflect a clear violation of my civil rights. Further, in the event I begin to send out letters, such as the attached, to prospective employers (particularly to members of the federal judiciary), it would pose a continuing and serious public relations problem for the U.S. Secret Service.

I have prepared the attached letters for the purpose of legal argumentation only. Please note, however, that I have a constitutionally-protected right to seek employment as well as a legal duty to advise prospective employers of any facts pertinent to my mental health and stability--issues placed in controversy by the Government of the District of Columbia--that may affect the employer's legal interests.

I want to add that in the event the D.C. Court of Appeals decides in favor of the District in the currently pending appeal of Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961, I believe that I may have preserved a substantial federal question for the purposes of a writ of cert. to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Brief of Appellant at 39 n. 19.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

bcc: D.C. Bar Counsel (Leonard H. Becker, Esq.)
Hon. Arlen Specter
Hon. Alphonse D'Amato

*********************************************************************

I included the following letter in my communication to the Secret Service and to Senator Arlen Specter. I never actually sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. The letter attempts to demonstrate that court filings made by Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. impaired my employability, thereby infringing on my constitutionally-protected right to seek employment.

Hon. Janet Reno
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC

Dear Attorney General Reno:

I am an attorney, and am licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I qualify for consideration for employment as an attorney in the Office of the Attorney General, and plan to apply at some future time for such employment position.

Preliminary to any future employment application, however, I want to advise the U.S. Department of Justice that the Government of the District of Columbia has affirmed that my former employer, the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld terminated my employment in October 1991 on the basis of genuine concerns about my mental health and stability, including the potential for violence. The employer's termination decision was made following an ex parte consultation with a psychiatrist who did not examine me personally. Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA 95-16 (final order, June 10, 1996). As of the filing of the complaint in the said proceedings, in October 1995, and at all times thereafter, it was unlawful under the laws of the District of Columbia for a psychiatrist to offer a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of personal examination as is strongly recommended by the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics. The D.C. Code in its latest revision makes it unlawful for a physician to "[fail] to conform to standards of acceptable conduct and prevailing practice within a health profession." See D.C. Code 2-3305.14(26). This provision was added to the District of Columbia Health Occupations Revision Act by D.C. Law 10-247, enacted on March 23, 1995.

The District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.) expressly affirmed to the D.C. Superior Court in pleadings filed in the above-referenced proceedings, relying on legally-irrelevant "after-acquired" evidence, see McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 115 S.Ct. 879, 885 (1995), that my coworkers had formed genuine (i.e., not motivated by discriminatory animus) fears that I might have been armed and dangerous and poised to carry out a homicidal assault on the firm's premises. The District implicitly asserted that coworkers' concerns about my potential for armed violence were relevant to the employer's decision to terminate my employment.

Because of concerns about my mental health and stability, including concerns about my potential for armed violence and homicide that have been placed in controversy and affirmed as genuine by the District of Columbia, I believe I have a legal duty to advise the U.S. Department of Justice of the following:

During the period September 1992 to June 1995 I received out-patient psychiatric treatment at the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry. In connection with my treatment, I prepared and submitted various documents to my treating psychiatrists as part of the process of psychotherapeutic cure and not for the purpose of revealing hidden danger. See Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 13 Cal.3d 177, 529 P.2d 553 (Sup. Ct. Ca. 1974).

These documents have discussed the following topics:

my fantasies relating to [a federal crime involving] the President of the United States;

my fantasies relating to the designing of weapons of mass destruction;

my fantasies relating to the commission of [a specified violent felony]; and

my fantasies relating to [a federal felony involving] the government of the United States.

Because of concerns about my mental health and stability, including concerns about my potential for armed violence and homicide that have been placed in controversy and affirmed as genuine by the District of Columbia, I believe The George Washington University Medical Center has a legal duty to apprise any prospective employer of facts in the Medical Center's possession that may relate to my current mental health and stability, including the potential for violence, which facts necessarily concern my suitability for employment and the employer's potential tort liability. See Merchants National Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo v. United States, 272 F.Supp. 409 (D.N.D. 1967).

For the information of the U.S. Department of Justice, I enclose one document on file at the George Washington University Medical Center that discusses my fantasies relating to [a federal crime involving] the President of the United States.

I am confident that concerns about my mental health and stability, including the potential for armed violence and homicide, placed in controversy by the Government of the District of Columbia will not prejudice my chances for employment as an attorney in the Office of the Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman