Friday, March 12, 2010

Why Was It Necessary For the DC Corporation Counsel To Defend This Appeal? -- Anyone?

In 1997 I appealed a decision of the DC Superior Court that upheld a prior decision of a District of Columbia agency that refused to reinstate my employment at Vernon Jordan's law firm in DC.

In March 1997 I met with the District's attorney, Charles L. Reischel at his office. He said -- with some vehemence -- "I'm not going to defend this appeal. If Akin Gump wants to defend this appeal, they can do it. But I'm not going to do it." I asked why. Chuck Reischel said: "I'm not committing the scarce resources of this office to this case." So I thought: "That's great. That will help my case. The DC Court of Appeals will only hear my side of the case and not the District's side."

Then early in an evening in June 1997 I got a telephone call at home from Chuck Reischel. He requested that I agree to grant the District an extension of time in which to file a brief in reply to my brief, which I filed with the DC Court of Appeals in mid-May 1997. I remember my dishwasher was on at the time and I was struggling to hear what Chuck Reischel was saying. I said to him: "But you said in March that you weren't going to defend this Appeal." He explained that the strains on his office's resources had lessened since March, and that he was now able to file a Reply Brief. I was disappointed, but being the good sport that I am I said: "Fine. You have my permission to file for an extension of time to file your Reply."

I then sent an angry letter off to Robert S. Bennett, Esq., who at that time was defending former President Clinton in the Paula Jones matter. Do you remember that? I walk the tightrope very skillfully -- playing the aggrieved employee for purposes of the Appeal and playing the asymptomatic paranoid schizophrenic for purposes of my Social Security Disability Claim. Yes, I lead a double life. I'm not too crazy and not too sane. I'm the Goldilocks of Social Security Claimants.

Chuck Reischel died a few years ago at age 60 from Lou Gehrig's disease. I know this is not the Christian thing to say, but I didn't mourn him. But then, I don't have a Christian heart.

But getting back to my question, why was it so vitally necessary for the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel to defend this appeal? Why did the District apparently employ a "win at all costs" strategy, relying on legally-irrelevant evidence, and in so doing, defaming not only me (by asserting that my coworkers had genuine and credible fears that I might have been armed and extremely dangerous) but also defaming my former employer--the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld--(by invoking irrelevant evidence that might support the inference that senior Akin Gump attorneys engaged in criminal acts)?


June 9, 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: Violence/Homicide Risk - Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld - Security Risk - William J. Clinton

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Further to my letter to you dated August 27, 1996 I am writing to assure you that I am keeping the U.S. Secret Service apprised of all material facts relating to the determination by the District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq.) that the concerns of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer, relating to my mental stability and potential for violence were genuine, and that the fears of a coworker that I might have had the intent to acquire firearms for an unlawful purpose and might have possessed the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or commit murder were genuine and not evidence of a hostile, offensive, or intimidating work environment.

The matter in controversy is currently on appeal before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, captioned Freedman v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, no. 96-CV-961. I met with Deputy Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel, Esq., at his office, in March 1997, at which time he assured me that he had no intention of defending the appeal. Mr. Reischel has subsequently advised me that he will be filing a brief in support of the District's determination that Akin Gump had genuine concerns about my mental health and stability. I believe that Mr. Reischel's decision to defend the appeal is unfortunate. Additionally, Mr. Reischel's earlier statement to me that he did not intend to file a brief constitutes an admission by the District that declining to defend this case is not adverse to the District's interest. Akin Gump has expressly declined to intervene.

The enclosed computer disc contains a copy of all of my most recent computer files. Rest assured, I will keep you and the Secret Service apprised of the status of this matter.

Also enclosed for your information is a copy of the brief I filed, on May 12, 1997, in the D.C. Court of Appeals in the above-referenced matter. Keep in mind that the document was prepared by an individual who has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a severe and disabling psychotic disorder that causes severe warps in the perception of reality. Presumably, the document is relevant to an insanity defense in any possible future felony (homicide) prosecution.


Gary Freedman

No comments: