November 17, 1997
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530
Michael R. Stiles, Esq.
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of
615 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-4476
Dear Mr. Stiles:
Further to my letter to your office dated July 1, 1997, I am writing to alert the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania I will be forwarding employment inquiries to individual judges of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as well as judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Notwithstanding the determination by the District of Columbia Superior Court that my former employer, the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, had valid business reasons to terminate my employment in October 1991 based on the employer's concerns about my mental health and stability (including the potential for violence), see Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA 95-14 (final order issued June 10, 1996); and notwithstanding the assertions of the District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel (Charles L. Reischel, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel) contained in pleadings filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals in a currently pending appeal of the above-referenced order (no. 96-CV-961) that (1) my coworkers had genuine concerns that I might have been armed and homicidal, implicitly affirmed that (2) the employer had genuine concerns that I might have formed the intent to engage in a homicidal assault on the employer's premises, and which pleadings left undisturbed the speculations of the D.C. Department of Human Rights that I might have filed (with the intent to defraud) inauthentic (i.e., forged or fabricated) documentary evidence intended to overcome the employer's proffered forensic psychiatric evidence that I suffered from a psychiatric symptom associated with a risk of violence, --
I hereby state:
I did not form an intent to commit murder at any time during my tenure at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, which employment ended October 29, 1991, notwithstanding the allegations of the Government of the District of Columbia;
I did not plan to acquire firearms with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or commit murder, notwithstanding the allegations of the Government of the District of Columbia;
I had no plans to engage in a homicidal assault on the premises of my former employer, and did not behave in any manner that might have caused the employer reasonably to believe that I might engage in such an assault, notwithstanding the allegations of the Government of the District of Columbia;
I did not file inauthentic (forged or fabricated) documents with a government agency in order to dispute forensic psychiatric evidence proffered by the employer that showed that I suffered from a psychiatric symptom associated with a risk of violent behavior, notwithstanding the speculations of the D.C. Department of Human Rights.
The enclosed computer disc contains copies of the pleadings I filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals in the above-referenced appeal (no. 96-CV-961), together with several other pertinent documents.
I stand ready to clarify further these matters to the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as well as to the judges of the U.S. District Court (Philadelphia) and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with my contemplated employment inquiries.
Gary Freedman, Esq.
cc: John C. Keeney, Jr., Ass't U.S. Attorney General, Criminal Div., DOJ
Hon. Arlen Specter (member, Senate Judiciary Committee)
Charles L. Reischel, Esq. (202) 727-6252