What Would A Wise Latina Judge Have Done?

The Government of the District of Columbia decided to accept as truthful the statements of Dennis M. Race, Esq. at Vernon Jordan's law firm that Mr. Race had determined, in consultation with mental health professionals, that I was paranoid, potentially violent, and not suitable for employment as of October 29, 1991. I provided the DC government persuasive evidence that Mr. Race's mental status determination was false. I ended up losing my lawsuit in which I tried to get my employment reinstated, but in the end it's you, the taxpayer, who lost.

If the Government of the District of Columbia wants to bolster false sworn statements that support my Social Security Disability claim, how does that hurt me? It may hurt you taxpayers out there who have sent me about $150,000 in disability benefits over the years, but it's allowed me to live a relaxed, leisurely life for the last 18 years. And THAT's the truth.

Maybe what this case needed was a "wise Latina Judge" who would stand up to the DC Government and say, "This court cannot, as a matter of public policy, allow an employer to certify an employee mentally unfit for employment in the manner that Vernon Jordan's law partners have done. This matter needs to go back to the DC Department of Human Rights." Of course, judges can only follow the law, not make law. Although a wise Latina once said that judges can make policy. I support wise Latina judges!

March 19, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

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

RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights - D.C. Superior Court Docket No. 95-MPA-0014

Dear Mr. Earl:

Enclosed for the information of the Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel with respect to the above-referenced matter is a collection of documents and tape recording comprising non-record evidence in my possession that either directly or indirectly controverts sworn statements made to the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) by Laurence J. Hoffman, Esq. and Dennis M. Race, Esq., both attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld 1/, respondent in the agency proceedings below.

The documents are forwarded to the Office of D.C. Corporation Council so that you, as an officer of the court, may take any action you deem appropriate, consistent with your professional responsibilities, to prevent a possible fraud on the court.

The enclosed documentation comprises:

1. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation between myself and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that occurred on July 2, 1993, in which Dr. Ticho expressly denies having made any representations of the nature alleged in DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

2. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation between myself and Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., that occurred in late October 1993 in which Dr. Ticho expressly denies having made any representations of the nature alleged in DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

3. Tape recording (and transcript) of telephone conversation that occurred on July 2, 1993 between myself and Alana Baptiste, an employee of Akin Gump's Employee Assistance Program Provider, Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources. Statements made by Alana Baptiste controvert DHR Finding of Fact no. 6, which adopts as fact sworn statements made to DHR by Messrs. Hoffman and Race. See Record at 17.

4. Letter dated October 17, 1994 addressed to Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, relating to the possible filing by attorney managers of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN), of willfully false sworn statements, which were adopted by DHR in its final determination as Finding of Fact no. 6, a possible felony under D.C. Code 22-2513 (false swearing) or a possible misdemeanor under D.C. Code 22-2514 (false statements).

5. Letter dated April 8, 1994 addressed to Deputy D.C. Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel regarding inconsistent material sworn statements made by attorney managers of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in two unrelated job termination proceedings: McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, No. 93-0477 (D.C.D.C., filed Nov. 29, 1993) (memorandum opinion and order) (Green, Joyce Hens, J.) and Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, agency no. 92-087-P(CN).

The Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel is further respectfully advised that any unqualified reaffirmation of DHR Finding of Fact no. 6 by the Office of D.C. Corporation Counsel, notwithstanding the existence of reliable and persuasive non-record evidence of infirmities in said finding of fact, may constitute a knowing repetition by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel of unreliable or libelous statements relating to my mental fitness, and may therefore constitute an additional violation of my civil rights under the laws and constitution of the United States. Cf. generally Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 47 L.Ed.2d 405, 96 S.Ct. 1155 (1976); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 48 L.Ed.2d 684, 96 S.Ct. 2074 (1976); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (1972).

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: [redacted]
__________________________________________________________
1/ Both attorneys are admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and are, therefore, officers of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.