Social Security Disability -- Initial Claim

June 14, 1993
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008

Paul G. Yessler, MD
2501 Calvert Street, NW
Suite 101
Washington, DC 20008

RE: Social Security Disability Psychiatric Evaluation
xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Dr. Yessler:

Enclosed with respect to the above-referenced matter is a collection of letters I wrote and sent (by mail or fax) to my sister after my job termination on October 29, 1991 and before the filing of a disability claim with the Social Security Administration. Most of the letters were in fact written and sent in the year 1992.

I wrote the letters under the influence of my belief that my sister was in communication with my former employer, Akin Gump, and that my sister, upon receipt of the letters, would transmit the letters by fax communication back to managers of Akin Gump.

Both the writing and sending of the letters together with the content of the letters establish the persistence of seemingly paranoid ideation throughout the period beginning October 29, 1991. The letters deal, among other issues, with my concerns regarding harassment by Akin Gump co-workers; harassing (and anti-Semitic) telephone calls I received during 1991 and 1992; my belief that various of my treating psychiatrists were in communication with my former employer; the belief that librarians at the Cleveland Park Public Library (referred to as "the Club") harassed me; my belief that a clerk at a Giant Supermarket in my neighborhood (Adam) harassed me concerning my friendship with Craig Dye; my belief that a specialist at the Brookings Institution (Stephen Hess) was in communication with my former employer; the belief that it was not a mere accident that my former supervisor, Christine Robertson, had me touch her breasts, etc.

Please forward these materials to:

Ms. Fay Peterson
District of Columbia
Rehabilitation Services Administration
Disability Determination Division
P.O. Box 37608
Washington, DC 20013

If you have any questions, you may contact me at (xxx) xxx-xxxx (or leave messages at xxx xxx-xxxx). Might I suggest a follow-up evaluation consult?

You may contact my sister, Mrs. Estelle Jacobson, at (609) 727-3295.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely ,

Gary Freedman

The above cover letter transmitted a document production of approximately 185 pages. The document production is presumably on file at the Social Security Administration. The produced documents were presumably a significant factor in Social Security's disability determination of August 1993.

The following is a copy of page 2 of the document production. It's a note that I faxed to my brother-in-law's business in New Jersey.

The note concerns the D.C. Mental Health Information Act, which prohibits a mental health practitioner from disclosing confidential mental health information about a patient or client without his consent. The law prohibits certain acts by mental health professionals, but is silent as to persons who solicit confidential mental health information from a practitioner. I believe that attorney managers at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer, routinely solicited and obtained confidential mental health information from my treating psychiatrists and psychologists. Under the Act, as written, the actions of Akin Gump do not seem to be prohibited.

I did some legal research to develop a legal theory under which the solicitation of confidential mental health information could be prosecuted. The following note discusses the results of my cursory research. Ironically -- humorously, even -- I sent the following note to Social Security to bolster my claim that I was disabled and not fit for employment at a law firm, or anywhere for that matter.

Incidentally, I transmitted all the faxes from the Brookville Supermarket in Washington, DC, where Jim Shipman used to work.


FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

I have to look up modern D.C. law, but just based on the materials I have at home, this is what I've come up with.

1. Tapack v. U.S., 220 F. 445 (3d Cir. 1915) (a person not bankrupt may be convicted of conspiring with a bankrupt to conceal the latter's property from the trustee, an offense defined only in terms of a bankrupt's actions). Cf. D.C. Code Sec. 6-2002.

2. State v. Myers, 36 Idaho 396, 211 P. 440 (1922) (the giver of a bribe may be convicted of conspiring with a public official to commit the crime of receiving a bribe, defined as receiving by a public officer). Cf. D.C. Code Sec. 6-2002. Although this case is distinguishable in that the giving of a bribe, though not part of the prohibited offense, was probably an inherently unlawful act, unlike the mere receipt of information from a mental health professional, which is not inherently unlawful. But one could argue that the receipt of the information was inherently unlawful because it was done in furtherance of an unlawful discriminatory practice (but I would have to prove intent).
_____________________________________

Combine the above with what follows, and I've come up with a novel tort theory. The recklessly negligent jeopardization by an attorney of another attorney's license to practice law. Under an old version of the canon of legal ethics, an attorney may be subject to disbarment if he does not report evidence of another attorney's unethical or illegal acts. If I don't report another attorney's unlawful acts, I may be
subject to disciplinary proceedings, including disbarment. (Also Steven Sack writes that some creative attorneys have been able to win lawsuits for unlawfully terminated employees under RICO. See The Employee Handbook of Rights, at 104. "Innovative lawyers are asserting federal racketeering (RICO) claims, seeking criminal sanctions and treble (triple) damages against companies. This is in addition to fraud and misrepresentation claims against individuals responsible for making wrongful termination decisions." Gotta look up RICO.

GF