Since 1991 I have been unemployed. I used to work at the Washington law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, as an insignificant face in a sea of hundreds of employees. I had sought stardom and fame. But these goals of notoriety eluded me. In the mid-1990s, while still unemployed, I began to devise ways to achieve the fame I craved and thought I deserved. I sought to capitalize on my tenuous, if not largely nonexistent, connections with the famous and powerful.
There was, I now began to see, the chance to be an actor in a drama of historical importance.
Here are several letters I wrote in the 1990s that show how I tried to piggy-back on a wave of publicity that I sought to create around the President of the United States. Speaking metaphorically, I was like a man who strove to gain publicity by building a hot-air balloon that floated, falcon-like, on the winds of destiny, to ever-greater heights. -- But then, I was never good with metaphors.
Here I remain in the year 2009 as anonymous as ever.
The following three letters are exemplars of my grandiose opportunism:
The first is a letter I sent to Robert S. Bennett, Esq. in 1997, who, at that time, represented President Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual harassment matter. At that time Charles F. C. Ruff, Esq. was White House Counsel to President Clinton. Earlier, in his capacity of DC Corporation Counsel, Charles F. C. Ruff had used legally-irrelevant evidence to defend an employment discrimination case I had filed against the DC Government.
July 31, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Robert S. Bennett, Esq.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
1440 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005-2107
RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of my reply to the District's opposition to my petition for review that I filed in 1996 in the D.C. Superior Court in Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, now on appeal as D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961.
The pleadings show unequivocally that the District (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.), in its opposition, made extensive use of so-called "after-acquired evidence" that was deemed legally irrelevant by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1995 opinion, McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 115 S.Ct. 879 (1995).
One might, generously, attribute the District's position, in the Superior Court proceedings below, to inadvertence. Unfortunately, the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel (Charles L. Reischel, Esq.) in the reply brief filed by the District on July 25, 1997 in the appeal of this matter before the D.C. Court of Appeals has once again--now, without any doubt, intentionally--resorted to extensive use of legally-irrelevant after-acquired evidence.
While it is true that in determining the scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law's ambiguities and potential for change, the law relating to the use of after-acquired evidence in Title VII actions is clear. The District's knowing reliance on legally-irrelevant evidence exceeds the limits within which the Office of Corporation Counsel may proceed, and may constitute unprofessional conduct.
Incidentally, it would take little ingenuity for certain segments of the media to draw a possible parallel between Mr. Ruff's apparent desperation to conceal Title VII violations committed by a law firm managed by one of the President's friends, and Mr. Bennett's conduct of his defense of the President in the Title VII matter instituted by Paula Corbin Jones.
cc: Charles L. Reishel, Esq.
Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. (The White House)
bcc: L. Patrick Swygert (President, Howard University) (8/2/97)
The second letter, written in late 1997, is addressed to Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against President Clinton.
December 3, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Hon. Susan Webber Wright
Little Rock, AR 72201-3323
RE: Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton
Dear Judge Wright:
This will respectfully advise the court, as a courtesy to counsel for the defendant in the above-entitled action (Robert S. Bennett, Esq.), that allusions to or implications of wrongdoing contained in a letter dated July 31, 1997 (copy attached) that I wrote and forwarded to Mr. Bennett are not supported by any evidence, of which I am aware, of actual wrongdoing.
I have no evidence that Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., current White House Counsel to President Clinton, was prompted by an improper motive to rely extensively on legally-irrelevant evidence, prejudicial to my cause, in pleadings he caused to be filed in the sexual harassment/sexual discrimination matter (arising under state law), referenced in the attached letter addressed to Mr. Bennett, dated July 31, 1997. The pleadings were prepared and filed in Mr. Ruff's name ex officio in his capacity as Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. Mr. Ruff presumably did not prepare the referenced pleadings (filed in D.C. Superior Court in May 1996); however, Mr. Ruff was personally apprised of the pendency of the matter by letter dated January 27, 1996 that I wrote and forwarded to him (copy attached).
I have no evidence that any associates of the defendant 1/ in the above-entitled action, President William J. Clinton, have attempted to influence improperly the outcome of the case referenced in the attached letter addressed to Mr. Bennett, which case is currently on appeal before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, no. 96-CV-961 (copy of appellant's pleadings attached). Also, Mr. Bennett's professional conduct in the above-entitled action has no relation, of which I am aware, to Mr. Ruff's defense of a sexual harassment claim involving a law firm managed by one of President Clinton's friends.
These representations are respectfully made to the court to prevent any unfair inferences regarding the content of the letter in the event of its future publication.
cc: Robert S. Bennett, Esq.
Board on Professional Responsibility (D.C.)
1/ Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq. as well as Lanny A. Breuer, Esq.--both White House counsel to President Clinton--[redacted] who issued an order (dated June 10, 1996) affirming a prior finding by the District Government that I was not subjected to unlawful sexual harassment or sexual discrimination by employees or members of my former employer, the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. Akin Gump is managed by a three-person executive committee that includes as a member Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq., a long-time close personal friend of President Clinton.
I wrote the third letter to the U.S. Secret Service in 1996 in an attempt to get the Secret Service to investigate my job termination by my former employer, the DC law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, a firm managed by Robert S. Strauss, Esq. and Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq.
February 20, 1996
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Philip C. Leadroot
U.S. Secret Service
Washington Field Office
Dear Mr. Leadroot:
I want to assure the U.S. Secret Service that I have not discussed matters pertinent to your investigation with any news organizations.
I want to point out, however, that an enterprising journalist could make a story out of facts contained in letters that I have already supplied to you. The facts of my case might conceivably give rise to a story such as the following, though other, perhaps more realistic (though no less embarrasing) stories are possible.
The New York Times
Tabloids Report Clinton Friends Shield Mental Patient; Rubin Denies Secret Service Protected Strauss Firm
A spokesman for Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin today refused to comment on news stories--reported in the tabloid press--that the Secret Service, at Rubin's direction, limited the scope of an investigation into a possible Presidential security threat in order to shield Rubin's long-time friend, Robert S. Strauss.
The investigation concerned the activities of a man, described as severely disturbed, who wrote a series of ominous letters to the Secret Service and other federal agencies that referred to President Clinton.
The man, known only as Anonymous, had been an employee of the Washington law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, founded by Robert S. Strauss, former Ambassador to Russia. Strauss has been a close personal friend of Rubin's for many years.
Strauss, contacted at Akin Gump's Washington Office refused to comment.
The tabloid press has raised questions in recent days about whether Strauss may have asked his long-time friend and confidant Rubin to order the Secret Service to limit the scope of the investigation, reportedly because any publicity concerning a full investigation might open a "hornet's nest" . . .